> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# There’s green in those red lights
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/theres-green-in-those-red-lights-editor/
- Published: 2007-10-02T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T03:07:05.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*By Michael S. Klein Santa Monica*

Red light cameras have many problems that (the Daily Press) article did not report (“Drivers to pay for pushing it,” Sept. 27). It is a shame that our City Council reversed their prior decision to allow these in our community. I urge them to reconsider.

Contrary to popular mythology, many studies show that red light cameras actually increase accidents. (See http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-net-2-85-million-increase/. See also http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp.) These articles note the real reason for red light cameras — they increase revenue for governments and the private companies that sell the camera devices to them. In essence, they are the good old small town “speed trap” writ large. So the private companies that make money on the cameras push for them and they oversell the benefits in slick presentations in order to rake in the cash.

Because of the income aspects, red light cameras also turn cities and the judges handling cases into interested parties. How do you get a fair hearing when the judge is directly or indirectly aware that the money is paying his or her salary and/or paying for needed items in his or her town?

Beyond those practical arguments, there are also at least three significant legal and Constitutional problems with traffic cameras mounted at intersections.

First, unlike the traffic officer who stops an alleged violator and issues a ticket which constitutes a summons to appear in court, when the ticket is by camera, the alleged violator supposedly gets the ticket by mail. But we all know that mail is often not delivered or that it may be intercepted by a roommate, eaten by the dog, not forwarded to a new address, or otherwise not delivered. This alone is reason enough to oppose these tickets.

Second, with a traffic officer, the alleged violator is stopped on the spot and has an opportunity to recollect the circumstances of the ticket and defend himself or herself. With a camera, the alleged violator receives the ticket many days or even weeks later. In the interim, the alleged violator probably does not know that a ticket is in process and may forget the circumstances. In fact, the alleged violator may go through the intersection in question daily. It is fundamentally unfair to ask someone to defend himself or herself without the opportunity to recollect the circumstances, gather witnesses, if required, and mount a defense.

Third, cameras mounted at intersections are another incremental invasion of our privacy today. As (the Daily Press) article notes, some law enforcement agencies are already asserting the right to use the photographs taken for other purposes. They could also be subpoenaed in civil disputes.

In addition, we are already seeing jurisdictions extend camera monitoring to include tickets for speeding using two cameras and measuring the elapsed time a car takes to pass between the two — another step in the disappearance of privacy in our society.

Fourth, why not simply hire more officers to monitor intersections? The income from the tickets they write should cover the cost — and they are then available at other times for necessary police services.

Fifth, if I were a dictator interested in taking over this country, one of the things that would most facilitate my efforts to restrain and control the populace would be an installed base of cameras and the legal precedents to retain them.

Cameras not only increase accident rates, but they also violate privacy rights, endanger the public welfare in the long term, and are fundamentally unfair to the public. The money should be used for human officers who can not only monitor traffic, but perform other necessary police functions.

It is fascinating to note that the statistics cited in (the Daily Press) article actually showed a decrease in accidents caused by running red lights, from 96 in 2005 to 73 in 2006\. By my calculations, that is more than a 25 percent reduction!

Given that success rate, achieved by the dedicated men and women under Chief Jackman’s command, where is the need for this?

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 2, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/100207.pdf?ref=smdp.com)