By on July 1, 2010

At a congressional hearing Wednesday, members expressed increasingly skeptical views toward the safety claims made by the usual cast of advocates for photo enforcement. The US House Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit invited five representatives of the familiar groups that advocate expanded use of red light cameras and speed cameras. In presentations before the committee and written testimony, however, members seemed to be more swayed by what the two camera opponents that appeared had to say.

“I had never heard, until I read the testimony, about people potentially tinkering with the yellow light period,” subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) explained in an interview following the hearing.

Cities in DeFazio’s congressional district, which covers the southwest corner of the state, have not embraced cameras. For that reason, DeFazio said he previously had not given much thought to the issue. The hearing was scheduled at the request of ranking member John J. Duncan (R-Tennessee). The city of Knoxville, which is in his district, uses cameras and has stirred up his constituents.

“A lot of people talked to me about it,” Duncan said. “In addition, it was a real controversial thing in the last session of the Tennessee legislature.”

Georgia state Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville) appeared before the committee to testify regarding the controversy in his state over the use of red light cameras and his proposed solution to the problems the machines raised.

“We started realizing that there was a questionable effect on safety,” Loudermilk said. “Accident rates have increased at several key intersections in the state… There was a financial incentive created by the use of red light cameras that local governments were no longer induced to seek out proven engineering methods to improve intersection safety. As a result, we passed House Bill 77… The key component of House Bill 77 was requiring an additional second to be added to the yellow time at any intersection that operates photo enforcement.”

The benefit of the change was immediate. Violations plunged up to 81 percent and several cities dumped their photo ticketing programs once they no longer were profitable. Dan Danila with the National Motorists Association pointed out how unpopular ticketing programs have been rejected in eleven cities and by fifteen states. DeFazio picked up on the unpopularity by noting that private companies like Redflex and American Traffic Solutions failed to appear at the hearing.

“We did invite vendors, and they refused,” DeFazio said during the hearing. “I thought of subpoenaing them, but we have lots of other things to do. I find it disturbing that none of them wanted to come and talk about what a great thing they’re doing for America here.”

DeFazio suggested he would like to see national legislation to address some of the problems. Such laws would only apply in cases where federal safety grants are distributed to localities to fund the use of automated ticketing machines.

“If you were going to use federal funds for automated traffic enforcement, we want to see that you’ve gone through a thoughtful process and evaluated other alternatives and that this is for safety, not revenue purposes,” DeFazio said after the hearing.

[Courtesy:thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

11 Comments on “Congress Sours On Red Light Cameras...”


  • avatar
    EEGeek

    Here’s a novel concept, Mr. DeFazio: let the localities deal with their own issues and you can stop squandering our posterity’s prosperity on dubious federal safety grants.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      Yeah, but since DeFazio is unlikely to turn back the clock 100 years, keeping federal money from funding these people killing cash machines will do.

  • avatar
    john.fritz

    Nothing more than Mr. DeFazio jumping out in front of the I-Hate-Red-Light-Cameras parade. Typical.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve65

      If it leads to laws prohibiting inducing violations to increase ticket revenue, and a constitutional review of the legality of being “accused” by an automated device, I’ll take the “jumping in front of the parade” as the price. What’s more important? Fixing the problem or getting the credit?

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Isn’t he the same guy who proposed taxing cars based on teh number of miles driven? Of course he stated they would never use the GPS units required by such a scheme to hand out speeding tickets. I’d wait before I start labeling him a friend of the American driver.

  • avatar
    thecavanaughs

    The feds should absolutely be involved in protecting Americans from overzealous enforcement of laws by state, county, and city. I don’t think that is stepping on state rights- in fact, I think it is one of the most fundamental reasons to have a federal government in the first place. If “liberty and justice for all” were any more important, we’d make kids recite it every day while facing a flag.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      One of the more fascinating aspects of the collective American psyche is this trust of regional governments and corporations over Federal.

      I’ll never understand it, considering that some of the worst examples of civil rights in any nation abuses come not from the top, but from petty little curtain-twitchers**. Having worked with all three levels of government—though not in the US—I’ll certainly say that, in terms of ethics, the Federal level is by far the least corrupt.

      On the other side of scale, you have New Rome, Ohio and it’s ilk.

      ** I also suspect that Americans get the government they deserve because the electorate encourges the curtain-twitcher mentality up to the Federal level. It bothers me that this is spreading to other western nations as well.

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      psarhinian,

      You got that right, only I’ll do you one further.

      I worked for the American Red Cross during the 2005 hurricane season (which included Katrina). Local government, law enforcement and fire departments in the deep south, from the TX/LA border stretching to Alabama were among the more corrupt organizations I’ve worked with (and I’ve spent a lot of time in Africa). Definitely the most corrupt Americans I’ve ever known.

      To give you an idea, by the third week after landfall, when relief efforts were in full swing, half of external law enforcement that was sent to the area was to keep on eye on the locals, because they couldn’t be trusted to distribute relief items on their own without the majority of supplies just disappearing.

      Local incompetency plus corruption vs Federal incompetency? I prefer the Feds, because at least they mean well even if they can’t get the job done.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Psarhjinian, the federal government is a ubiquitous monopoly. I can’t vote with my feet and avoid the federal level of government. On the other hand, I can boycott New Rome, Ohio and just about any other town that becomes corrupt. Sometimes they implode into black holes like Detroit, but even extreme messed up cities have little impact on daily life because most Americans have mobility.

      Corporations are even easier to boycott than cities. Automakers are starting to figure out how much power consumers have to say oh hell no. Competition, not elite experts, eventually cleans up the mess by forcing corporations to either clean up their act or exit the market.

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      George B,

      Nah man, it’s not. Not by the definition that you’re using. You’re free to move some place where the US Federal governments rules do not apply to you – another nation-state. It’s just probably not within your means to do so.

      For those without the means to move from one locality to another, they’re under the local monopoly of their local government.

      The vote with your feet argument is and always has been a complete wash if you choose to look both left and right before crossing this particular street.

  • avatar
    MarcKyle64

    If a municipality reduces the yellow light length to less than the Federal standard in order to increase camera enforcement revenue, then wouldn’t I be justified in seeking charges of conspiracy to commit murder for hire? The city will profit while people are injured and killed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: MitchConner: “Get rid of the overhead.” How about getting rid of the financial drain of these...
  • ShoogyBee: Here in Milwaukee, Kias and Hyundais are being stolen left and right. Visit the Milwaukee subreddit and...
  • Ol Shel: Spoken like someone who still dumps his used motor oil down the well. It’s the only true way to own...
  • Ol Shel: And those old V10 fords and Dodges are worth almost nothing due to their hideous economy. Same will happen...
  • dal20402: “f you’re dumb enough to get screwed by a dealer you had it coming to you.” What boundless...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber