Lights aren’t flashing behind red-light runners, but that doesn’t mean they are safe
Sick of seeing drivers ask themselves that question and then gun it to “beat the light,”Councilman Bob Holbrook has made it his personal mission to have red-light cameras installed to catch them in the act... before they end up killing someone.
“I’m suggesting a pilot program and try two or three intersections and then reevaluate and decide if we can continue that or not,” Holbrook said. “I have talked with our police department and based on the information officers gave me, red-light cameras dramatically reduce the number of people who run red lights and result in a reduction in deaths and injuries.”
Holbrook hopes the issue can be discussed at tonight’s City Council meeting, however, the item has been delayed several times because recent agendas have been stacked, leaving little time for debate.
“My whole motive is strictly to try and stop bad driving habits, and red-light running is a symptom of it — it’s a big one,” said Holbrook, who often wishes he had a siren so that he could pull over violators and issue them a citation.
Red-light cameras have become a very popular method of preventing traffic accidents and fatalities, according to law enforcement agencies in neighboring cities,such as Culver City and Los Angeles, which have been using the devises to snap pictures of violators since 2000. Los Angeles currently has 11 intersections with cameras and plans to expand to 32 in July.
A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to obey the signals. In 2005, more than 800 people were killed and an estimated 165,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.
Supporters of the cameras, which snap pictures of motorists and their license plates as they pass through an intersection illegally, say they help agencies with limited resources properly patrol busy intersections while allowing officers to focus their efforts on other crimes.
Those opposed believe the cameras violate one’s right to privacy and are concerned about Big Brother keeping a watchful eye. They also claim yellow lights are cut short to trap motorists.
The council flirted with the idea of installing the cameras in 2000 and 2002, however, the majority of members got cold feet despite strong support from then SMPD Chief James T. Butts Jr., who said running red lights was on the rise, citing figures from 1998 to 1999 that showed the number of violations increased by more than 200 and accounted for about 7 percent of all traffic accidents in 1999.
Several members said they did not want to be in the position of monitoring the movements of residents and visitors.
“I didn’t support it then, and I don’t support it now,” said former Mayor Mike Feinstein, who was on the council during the first red-light camera debate. “I don’t think who should photograph people in public places even though it is already happening. We don’t need to do more of it, especially when there are other measures we can take.”
Feinstein said an intersection near his home was the site of numerous accidents until the city installed a median that slowed down traffic.
Lucy Dyke, transportation planning manager for City Hall, said speed bumps have been installed to slow traffic, as have neighborhood speedometers to make drivers more aware of how fast they are traveling.
There is also the issue of cost. At roughly $100,000 a pop, the cameras don’t come cheap, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In 2002, city staff estimated a cost of $4.2 million for six intersections.
The cost can be offset by fines collected, from crashes prevented and by freeing up police to focus on other efforts, supporters said.
Studies have also shown large support amongst the public for the cameras, especially in large cities where 83 percent of drivers supported their use, according to the institute.
While the council voted down the cameras in 2000, there are signs that elected officials may be in support of it the second time around.
Within recent years, the council has approved the use of cameras on buses and on the Third Street Promenade as well as the Santa Monica Pier to help law enforcement and protect against lawsuits.
“I hope the council shares my concerns,” Holbrook said. “I felt we’ve reached such a bad place that something has to be done about it. I just figure if they drive in Santa Monica, they certainly see the same things I’m seeing.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 20, 2007. Read the original PDF.