Only the cities have reason to smile when motorists are on hidden cameras

The idea that cities use cameras to enforce traffic laws in the interest of public safety -- not just as another municipal money-maker -- took a hit recently.
The Washington Post examined the accident records for the locations of the 45 red-light cameras in the national capital and found that the number of accidents increased. The study, which was reviewed by independent traffic specialists, showed that the accident rates were substantially greater at intersections with cameras than those without.
These are figures that Girard, which is already using speed-monitoring cameras, and Warren, which has talked about both speed and red-light camera enforcement, should look at.
In fact, Girard city officials should make a public commitment that if it cannot be shown that accident rates have decreased after a trial period of camera use, the cameras will be gone.
Warren city officials, before taking any action on awarding a contract for camera enforcement should demand that the potential vendors demonstrate by clear and convincing statistical evidence that their cameras have resulted in fewer accidents, injuries and deaths in other cities in which they are in use.
It won't happen
We're suggesting that, but we suffer no illusions about it happening. We remain unconvinced that "photo enforcement" (as the tiny signs leading into Girard describe it) is about creating safer streets. It is about fattening municipal coffers.
The experience in Washington, D.C., is instructive. Over the six years the cameras have been in operation, total accidents at camera-monitored intersections increased 104 percent; accidents involving death or injury were up 81 percent; and broadsides rose 30 percent.
At intersections without the cameras, the comparable figures were 64 percent; 54 percent; and 17 percent. Citywide, the number of crashes went up 61 percent.
City officials had no explanation for the discrepancy, although anecdotal evidence and some studies say rear-end accidents tend to go up because camera-monitored red lights encourage drivers to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed.
Not without controversy
The District of Columbia has had its problems with the red-light cameras. When it became known that the private contractor running the operation was being paid on a per-ticket basis, the public outcry forced the city to switch to a flat fee. And there was widespread suspicion that the cameras were situated with an eye to revenues. The Post found that only 17 of the 50 most dangerous intersections had red-light cameras while others were placed at relatively safe but high-volume locations.
The one area in which the cameras were an unqualified success was as a money-maker. In the last six years, the cameras have brought $32 million. Pure profit for the municipality. Pure loss for the unfortunate drivers.
Of course, in this scheme, the drivers that got the tickets were the luckier ones. The real losers were the people whose cars were damaged or who were injured or killed in accidents caused by the cameras.
If these statistics hold up, they may spell the end for camera enforcement. Not because city officials will ever get tired of taking motorists' money, but because eventually personal injury lawyers will go after the private companies that set up and administer the cameras. A few multi-million dollar lawsuits claiming that the companies share responsibility for losses sustained in accidents caused by cameras could take the smile off a lot of faces.