The "Red Light - Green Light" Escapade

There was this kid’s game – we called it “Red Light – Green Light” where one “Key” person stood with his or her back to the rest of the players – this being the “green light” phase and the players were free to move around – but then the “Key” would turn around, shouting “Red Light”, and anyone that was caught moving was declared out of the game.

Connecticut’s Legislature is playing “Red Light – Green Light” now.  They propose to put cameras at traffic intersections controlled by traffic lights, and any vehicle caught moving when it’s “Red Light” time is declared “caught” and subjected to fines and penalties.

Note – “Vehicle”.  Not the driver, just the car is caught.  Yet somehow, the supporters of this proposal think that is good law enforcement. It might be the driver who ran the light, but the vehicle is caught.

So what if your car is being driven by someone other than the owner of the car?  Maybe you are making a perfectly legal “right-hand turn after red” turn. The cameras reportedly don’t even take a picture of the driver – indeed, they take a picture of the license plate on the back side of the vehicle.  Then some police official somewhere gets to look at the picture and decide the vehicle ran a red light  (like you can do that in the police station)  and mail out a ticket to the car’s owner for the violation.  Last I heard it was a fine of $65.

Of course, this law gives the owner a chance to appeal the fine, but now that means taking time off from your work to go down to the courthouse, wait your turn, argue your point with the prosecutor and hopefully at the end of the day, go home without paying the fine but losing a day’s wages in the process.

 Whatever happened to the concept of facing your accuser?  I can see it now – there you are, in the witness chair, telling the judge that you see your accuser over there, while pointing to a high-priced Polaroid camera … Your lawyer then questioning the camera when called to the stand about the time of day, the weather conditions, who witnessed the event …

And then there is the concept of a quick and speedy trial.  If a policeman pulls you over for a red light violation, you will know instantly what you have been accused of, and can either agree and pay for the ticket or make a defense with some degree of accurate recall.  But if you get a photo of the rear-end of your car weeks after it was alleged to go through some intersection by running a red light, well, what recollection do you have? Can you responsibly remember the facts that occurred at the time of this alleged violation?  Probably not – maybe not even able to identify where this incident occurred, if it did at all.

We are told that these cameras are for our safety. The police department likes them. They don’t have enough manpower to cover every intersection, every hour of every day.

 It is true that more than half the vehicle accidents occur at intersections, and that running a red light is one of the many causes for these accidents – indeed, out of the four accidents I have had in my driving career, three were at an intersection … none the result of running a red light, however, by either party.  And out of these four accidents, a police officer was involved in only one.

Naturally, the camera salesman claims that accidents go down when there are cameras located at intersections.  Well, partially true – head-on collisions are reduced, but rear-end collisions have gone up! The National Motorist Association reports that In Los Angeles, 20 of 32 such intersections saw increased accident rates, some tripling their accident rate. In Washington, D.C. accidents increased 107%, in Portland, OR by 140%, in Philadelphia by 10 to 21%. Smaller towns also saw increases including 83% in Fort Collins, CO, 14 to 30% in Corpus Christi, TX and even as high as 800% increase in rear end collisions in Oceanside, CA.  These statistics indicate the bulk of these accidents were the result of rear--end collisions caused by a driver stopping suddenly to avoid going through a red light.

Enough of the data.  The red light bill has left the State’s Finance Committee with a favorable recommendation to the legislature for passage.  Why would a traffic bill go through the Finance Committee?  That sure makes this bill sound more like a money grabbing issue than a real safety issue!

And get this – only towns over a certain population would be initially permitted to install these lights.  Well, who lives in the cities but many poor people, and many of them minorities.  Connecticut’s red light bill doesn’t care - $65 please … can we say it is targeting the poor and minority populations?

How about this – enough opposition to the bill has caused it to be amended so that no points would be added to a driver’s record for a violation of this law – it only results in a fine.

Here is an example of our government officials telling us what is good for us again. 

Well, if it is to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, then we must rise up and call our legislators. Tell them not to assume that we like being accused by a camera that we violated a law.  Mr. or Ms. Legislator, do not vote for this bill, at the risk that come Election Day, I will not vote for you!