Metro Council to take on red light cameras in EBR

Advocate file photo by MARK SALTZ -- The East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council will consider Wednesday whether to renew a five-year contract with a company that manages the city-parish's red light traffic cameras, like these at Lee Drive facing north toward Perkins Road.

“I’m looking forward to seeing if they can really show it’s reducing the amount of traffic crashes and doing what it’s supposed to do.” Councilwoman Tara Wicker

The East Baton Rouge Parish Metro Council will consider Wednesday whether to renew a contract with the company that manages red light cameras, but some council members say they’d like to do away with the automated ticketing system.

The city-parish approved a five-year contract with American Traffic Solutions for a traffic signal enforcement system in August 2007, and the Metro Council is being asked to renew the controversial camera system contract for five more years.

“From a safety standpoint, while I know they’re not popular, there’s a lot of evidence that they’re reducing accidents and changing people’s driving habits,” said William Daniel, chief administrative officer for Mayor-President Kip Holden.

Daniel said the primary purpose of the cameras is to promote driver safety, but he added that the funds generated by the cameras are “certainly something that we count on.”

Between 2008 — the first year the cameras were put in place — and 2012, drivers paid $13,355,811 in fees for running red lights, an average of about $2.7 million per year, according to city-parish budget documents.

Of those funds, ATS collected $4,985,040. The city-parish collected the remaining funds, which went to the Baton Rouge Police Department’s budget.

The police department’s budget for 2013 includes $1,638,000 in projected revenue from fines generated by red light tickets.

A red light violation has a fee of $117, with a $35 late fee.

The cameras are only placed at 20 intersections, but since implemented they have quadrupled the amount of tickets being issued on a yearly basis. The cameras take snapshots of cars that run red lights and traffic tickets are mailed to the offender.

A 2011 review of the camera system by The Advocate found that 5,300 red light tickets were manually written by law enforcement officers in 2007 and 8,464 were written in 2006 — before the camera system was put in place.

The first year the cameras were installed, 22,794 tickets were issued. The next year, 34,853 tickets were issue and in 2010, 41,110 tickets were issued.

Councilman Ryan Heck said he opposes the camera system but would prefer to allow voters to decide if they want the cameras.

“William (Daniel) says this isn’t for revenue, it’s for public safety — but if it’s about public safety then let’s add a second or two to the yellow light,” Heck said, adding that other cities have seen a reductions in the number of crashes as a result of that move.

Heck said other traffic solutions are available to address public safety issues “that don’t cost the public $150 when they make poor decisions.”

Heck also questioned whether the camera ticketing system violates the constitutional rights of individuals. It is a question several court systems across the country are wrestling with as a result of a flood of lawsuits that have been filed in various municipalities.

A federal court decision in New Mexico about the constitutionality of the cameras is pending, and legal challenges to the cameras in Florida are making their way toward that state’s supreme court, according to news reports.

Councilman Buddy Amoroso also said he is opposed to the use of red light cameras.

“I believe they are more for revenue enhancement than for public safety,” he said. “I’ve never been convinced they ever served a role in improving public safety.”

Amoroso said he’ll either vote against the contract renewal, or he’ll ask for a 60-day deferral in the hopes of putting it to a vote of the parish.

Some council members said they would like to see evidence the cameras are improving safety.

“I know the community has mixed views on the use of those cameras,” said Councilwoman Tara Wicker. “I’m looking forward to seeing if they can really show it’s reducing the amount of traffic crashes and doing what it’s supposed to do. I’m not all that convinced that it is.”

Councilman Scott Wilson said many constituents perceive the cameras as a “money grab.”

He said the administration will have to make “a very convincing argument” that the cameras are truly improving public safety in order to win his support.

“It seems like people are still trying to beat the light, or else they stop at the last minute because they’re afraid of the ticket and get rear ended,” Wilson said.

Councilman Trae Welch said he can’t attend Wednesday’s meeting, so his absence will effectively count as a vote against the renewal.

Renewing the contract requires affirmative votes from seven council members.

The contract is set to expire on Feb. 17, which Welch said doesn’t give the council adequate time to make a decision.

“Why are we just getting this now? This is something they should have brought to us six months ago,” he said, noting that the council as of Monday had received minimal information about the cameras.

Daniel and John Price, assistant chief administrative officer for the mayor, said they have information supporting their claims that the cameras have improved safety. However, they did not make that information available to The Advocate as of late Tuesday afternoon.

A 2011 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety examined red light camera studies conducted internationally and concluded that the cameras generally lower red light violations by 40 to 50 percent and injury crashes by 25 to 30 percent.

Red light cameras are used in approximately 543 communities as of this month, according to the IIHS.

If Baton Rouge decides to discontinue using the cameras, it will be following in the footsteps of cities like Houston and Los Angeles whose city councils have in recent years opted to pull the plug on their red light camera programs.

At least nine states have prohibited the red light camera systems entirely according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. They are Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Maine.

The Metro Council is expected to vote on the contract renewal at 4 p.m. Wednesday in City Hall.

ä ON THE INTERNET:

To see a full list of intersections with red light cameras, visit: http://brgov.com/RedLight/locations.htm

Comments

1) Comment by IH8Mud - 02/14/2013

Many of these comments are funny in the concern about the red light cameras. For myself, I know that I am not going to get a ticket from them and there is a simple answer for this. I don't run the lights when they are red. It is simple. If you are cutting it too close, you are not paying enough attention to the lights, are going too fast, or are trying to cut it too close. You deserve a ticket. If you hit someone because they didn't run it and you thought they would, you are following too closely, going too fast, or are trying to cut it too close. I don't care if it raises money for the city or not. I care that it does help to prevent careless, thoughtless, self-centered, irresponsible, and reckless drivers to be a little less of hazard to others on the road. One less hazardous driver on the road can make the difference between someone else who simply goes about their day and someone else that lives with a painful and debilitating injury for the rest of their life.

2) Comment by wadep66 - 02/14/2013

I have personally witnessed a great improvement of driver behavior thanks to the cameras. The intersections at College Dr and I-10 alone used to have 4-5 cars that routinely ran the red light EVERY TIME it changed. That has stopped. If you think money isn't a motivator for any other ticketing, think again. Revenue generation is a big factor in police writing tickets. It's great that we get a two-fer in this case. Safer driving, more revenue. If you don't like the camera's its because you like breaking the law. Quit whining and start driving responsibly!

3) Comment by Woody - 02/13/2013

i never thought i would agree with bouncer but there is nothing more i can add to their comments. well stated, bouncer.

4) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

I've been living in , driving around B.R. since 1969 . some parking tickets at LSU . never have I been "shaken down" for running a red light , guess I'm just lucky ...

5) Comment by phil - 02/13/2013

I think there are several different questions to ask. Do the cameras really work as far as reducing accidents? Who is really making the money on these deals? Why hand out a 5-year contract instead of having a competitive bid process for a shorter amount of time? What happened in New Orleans relative to cameras? Could it happen here?

6) Comment by brhope - 02/13/2013

I bet the more cameras go in the shorter and shorter yellow lights are going to last. All over Baton Rouge citizens are getting "shaken down" for money by using "the law" as reasoning. How about putting cameras in bar parking lots and seeing who is leaving intoxicated and ACTUALLY doing something about it.

7) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

Of course, that's far too simple (and sensible) a solution for the average "motorist" in Baton Rouge, MBW. One point of operation about the red light cameras is that they do not flash a photograph unless they detect motion over the stop line at a certain speed AFTER the light has turned red. So if you get a ticket, you definitely ran a red light and you deserve the ticket, no if's, and's, or but's.

8) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

I love seeing all the people on here who think that there should be laws against running red lights, but that the govt. shouldn't be able to enforce those laws.

9) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

Hey folks, if you're following so closely that someone can't put on brakes in front of you....YOU'RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY. When you rear-end someone, ever notice what the ticket is for? "Following too closely". The solution is simple: when you approach a traffic light back off of the person in front of you.

10) Comment by On_The_Fence - 02/13/2013

Policing should not be about Revenue!

11) Comment by zealer99 - 02/13/2013

It would not matter, to me, if they were promoting safety or revenue enhancement IF they were required to have 4 seconds of yellow built into the cycle and there was a way to verify that period of time. What concerns me is the possibility that if a decline in revenue occurs, they reduce the length of the yellow cycle to cause more violations to increase revenues.

12) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

slow down , get off the phone !

13) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

apologies for my crass language , I'll be nice . the speed vans on I- 12 in Livingston Parish worked , 'concerned citizens" had them removed . people gripe when cops give them tickets , they gripe when a camera catches them . what the heck do you want , selective law enforcement ? I'm sorry I got caught , but it wasn't my fault . grow up , as you suggest to others be responsible for yourself , is this okay ?

14) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

Nobody would argue that the incidence of rear end collision might increase somewhat under the circumstances you outline. However, at the same time, studies have shown that the occurrence of right-angle crashes (called a t-bone crash) have been reduced as much as 25%. Those kinds of crashes are far more dangerous than a rear-ender and carry a much greater potential for fatality. In addition, the overall incidence of red light running is reduced, too. T-bone crashes are caused not only by inattention but also by people who see yellow and think they can blow through the intersection. True, I don't like being rear-ended. But I would dislike even more being crashed into at a right angle by someone running a red light.

15) Comment by LSUguitarist - 02/13/2013

The red light cameras need to go. I've only seen one comment below that nails the reason why, but it is a good enough reason to argue against the cameras. It is simple: when you know there is a red light camera at the upcoming intersection and you are traveling at full speed with a green light ahead and it suddenly turns yellow, if you are close enough then you are likely to then slam on your brakes to keep from going through the intersection and getting ticketed. This creates a bad situation because the driver behind you can be caught off guard and then BOOM you get rear-ended. If the camera was not there and you knew it wasn't, you would be more likely to take your chances with the yellow light and go on through to prevent slamming on your brakes. Simply put, they cause more accidents than they prevent. Want sources? Just do some research. Here's a few places to start: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/red-light_cameras_lead_to_more.html http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ The evidence is clear and lawmakers need to accept the FACTS instead of the quick easy cash, and you people need to research more before saying "put more of em up! I hate red light runners!" Bet you hate rear-end collisions too....

16) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

I wonder how people would react if the powers that be were perfectly candid about the issue and admitted that they don't really give a toss about traffic safety. But instead, they simply believe that as many traffic violators as possible should be caught and fined, and that in so doing, the city's coffers will swell with cash. Although I fully support the use of the cameras, I would have so much more respect for politicians if once, just once, they would simply tell the truth about something without trying to cloak it in a buzzword or platitude like "public safety" or "for the children."

17) Comment by The_Host - 02/13/2013

I'll believe all this is in the name of "safety" as soon as I see State Troopers pulling over EBR Cops driving home going 15 mph over the speed limit. Till then spare me the line about safety and for the children yada yada yada.

18) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

Why was nimbys comment removed? That's totally unfair!

19) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 02/13/2013

It's not a question of traffic safety, or even money, but it IS beyond your capacity to comprehend.

20) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

21) Comment by Attila - 02/13/2013

Mark this day on your calendars. I finally agree with SuzanneMS, DMJ, and Bouncer all at the same time. The reasons given by folks who want the camera's removed range from the hilarious to the ludicrous. Some folks just will not accept the consequences of their actions. I think the the proposal to increase yellow light time to 4 seconds is asinine. All that will accomplish is giving a violator more time to run the light. How many drivers are capable of, or actually do "approach a yellow light, take into account all pertinent factors (speed, distance, road conditions, other drivers) and decide whether it would be safest to proceed through or stop" as stated by one responder? That is a lot of decisions to make in a matter of a few seconds. Methinks that that driver is going to run the yellow light regardless; he just doesn't like getting caught. As far as having a "real person" give you the ticket, if it were to go to court it is your word against the cop. A picture will remove all doubt. I say keep em and put out more.

22) Comment by zealer99 - 02/13/2013

I note with amusement that the safest settings for a red light is to have a moment during the cycle when the light is red from all directions of travel. Most of the red lights in have had that pattern for many years. The best alternate is to have a full 4 seconds of yellow during the cycle before the light turns red. But since we are more interested in revenue, the length of time that the light is yellow is decreased more toward 3 seconds than 4 seconds.There is a legend of the small town in Mississippi where the Justice of the Peace sat in a booth facing the red light that was a couple of blocks away and that he had controls for the light in his office and could switch from green to red, bypassing yellow completely. The Constable was watching the intersection and every can from Louisiana "ran the red light" and received a citation and they had to post a $20 bond (this was pre-1970) or go to jail and the fine was also $20, so the bond was forfeited and the County kept the cash. So, I have to wonder, do they reduce the length of the yellow cycle to keep "profits" up or do we have honest politicians?

23) Comment by Straight Shooter - 02/13/2013

The notion that contracts with the City/Parish should be decided by the voters is silly and lacks any common sense. Think of how inefficient and costly it would be to have an election on every contract. The voters elect officials to make these decisions. Deferring to a public vote on these type of issues shows a lack of will in performing the duties that were given to you by the voters, i.e. listening to both sides and voting yes or no.

24) Comment by BR is Ruined - 02/13/2013

I feel safer WITHOUT the cameras. Once upon a time I could approach a yellow light, take into account all pertinent factors (speed, distance, road conditions, other drivers) and decide whether it would be safest to proceed through or stop. These days, when I'm approaching a known "camera intersection" at full speed and the road is wet, if that light turns yellow I'm likely to slam on my brakes and risk sliding into the intersection or other drivers in an attempt to avoid a $150 fine.

25) Comment by DennisBTR - 02/13/2013

It's not about the money -- really? It's all about the money. The safety issue (if it is even valid) is secondary. If it were not about the money they the fines should not be so high or perhaps the money generated could be donated to some agency that is not related to the police department.

26) Comment by WhoCares - 02/13/2013

I'm surprised it only took 32 comments to make mention of gun control, food stamps, welfare drug tests, and referring to a car as a deadly machine. God Bless Amurica.

27) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

Bouncer , I usually see them in the smallest vehicle possible , a ford fiesta , poor car huggin the ground . I'd be willing to bet those complaining received tickets they felt were unjustified . they drive 5- 10 miles above the speed limit or ride the tails of others in traffic , while on the cell phone . quityerbich'n .

28) Comment by foldgers - 02/13/2013

I just have a sneaking feeling that the majority of people who are against these cameras are pretty much the majority of the people for gun control. Guns are bad, so government should step in. I don't make enough money, so government should give me some. I made all the wrong choices my entire life and still do to this day, so the government should take care of me. I want to run a red light, but the government should let me and not charge me so much! The government is overstepping its power by putting a camera up to penalize people for breaking the law is NOT good? But, the government is NOT overstepping its power by penalizing people with guns who are OBEYING the law? If you so not want to pay this insane fee, then DO NOT RUN A RED LIGHT! Simple! Done. Easiest way to not give money to the government. It is also like you are saying why are we punished by having cameras watching us because only a few people choose to run red lights?? Think about that with guns as well, but also, considering over $13,000,000 has been fined to people running lights just in THIS city and ONLY at a few intersections, I would say the problem is a lot worse. I own an AR-15, but I will not shoot it in a neighborhood and that makes me a bad person. But, it is OK for someone driving a deadly machine through an intersection when they are not supposed to? Drug test people who work for a living, so they can EARN money, but it is discrimination to drug test those who do not work and collect the money that the "drug free" people work for?? Sure, this all makes perfect sense!

29) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

All I can say is that in the 2 years I've lived here, I have seen very few accidents at the intersections where there are traffic cameras.

30) Comment by phil - 02/13/2013

Wasn't Mr.. Daniels with the DPW before he went to the Mayor's office? How about that $1.6 billion sewer project that seems to increase in cost every year and never ends? Were some of these people in the LA Legislature at the same time some years ago? Now we are hearing how great those cameras are from some of the same folks? Regardless of how you feel about those cameras, I have to ask why should we hand over a 5-year long contract to any company? Shouldn't the city-parish at least get competitive bids every year or so if they are going to continue this project.? The timing of this and all the other facts seems to make this smell funny to me (maybe kind of like that sewer smell?)

31) Comment by Frustrated - 02/13/2013

Keep the cameras. They work.

32) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

Not to be overly critical, but casual observation reveals that there are some real cows behind the wheel in this city, WhoCares. If the city wants to raise revenue, they should start charging a special wear and tear tax for all of the fatties on the road. They could balance the budget with the stroke of a pen.

33) Comment by WhoCares - 02/13/2013

Bouncer, that comment is hilarious.

34) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

One of the first things that struck me upon moving here, besides the number of fat women driving Dodge Rams, is how terrible so many of the drivers are. A disproportionate number apparently have no clue of what a turn signal is for. Tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic in an effort to get one car length ahead, failing to yield right of way to an oncoming vehicle, inability to properly merge, blowing through red lights, and even BAD PARKING characterize the typical Baton Rouge driver. I say let the red light cameras proliferate like mushrooms after a rain storm. If you don't run a red light, you won't get a red light ticket.

35) Comment by foldgers - 02/13/2013

"...other traffic solutions are available to address public safety issues “that don’t cost the public $150 when they make poor decisions.” Ok, what are these other solutions? And calling these people running red lights "poor decisions?" People, take responsibility for yourselves? Stopping at the last minute and getting rear ended is still your fault for not paying attention while driving. Also, I would rather you be rear ended than flying across an intersection threatening a pedestrian, or a car full of kids or many other possible things you threaten because your life and 2 minutes of it is so important, that it is OK to break the law. Give me a break. If you so not think it is fair, the fine or the cameras... I have said it before, the easiest way to get rid of them is to OBEY THE LAW! Stop at yellow lights. Make the cameras cost the city too much money because no one is being issued tickets. You'd be amazed how quickly they will go away. $150 too much for ya? Think of this, as was taught to me as a kid, "...yellow means wait, even if you're late." Yes, it is weird with the cameras all over and I do not like a big brother watching, but since police can't be at every intersection, this is the only way. There are many intersections I wished they had cameras as I have been nearly killed in MANY other parts of town, because people are so used to thinking that even running the light RIGHT when it turns red, is OK. But hey, your two minutes you are saving in your life is worth risking mine for. Pay your $150 and shut up! heck, I say pay $1000! Make the penalty crazy enough and crime will STOP!

36) Comment by DMJ - 02/13/2013

Drivers in Baton Rouge are some of the most careless and inconsiderate I've ever encountered. Anything to hinder driving like a selfish moron is a good thing, in my opinion. Plus, if it's making the city money, then all the better.

37) Comment by BRmoderate - 02/13/2013

Remember how bad the essen @ I10 intersection was? how did the camera change things? How about Sherwood/Coursey??? I hate the cameras because they are too expensive. Lower the fines to $25. Increase the yellow light time too. Maybe allow a 1 second grace period before snapping off a shot.

38) Comment by WhoCares - 02/13/2013

I would like to see a red light cam put up at Bluebonnet and I10. There's a wreck at that light weekly. I've seen cops get in wrecks there. You better operate under the 5 second rule at that light.

39) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 02/13/2013

And it should be just as easy for someone in "government" to answer the simple question: are these "citations" civil or criminal infractions?

40) Comment by BRmoderate - 02/13/2013

I think The Advocate failed miserably in presenting the most important facts. If the debate is about whether these things make our roads safer then why is there not one statistic compared accidents at these intersections before/after the cameras were installed? I see a national statistic but c'mon, it should be easy for a reporter to get the local numbers.

41) Comment by Bouncer - 02/13/2013

I have to agree with the red light camera proponents. And personally, I don't care if they are set up "just for the money." People who run red lights are a threat to me and every other sensible, safe driver on the road, and they deserve to be caught. An officer can't be present all the time, but the camera is ever-vigilant, flashing away at the scofflaw traffic scum who believe their time is more valuable than everyone else's, so they feel entitled to run lights. Not only do I wish that they would install more and more of the lights, but I also wish that they would raise the cost of running a light to several hundred dollars. I do not fear the traffic cameras because I do not break the law.

42) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 02/13/2013

Rarely do "law enforcement" officers prevent murders.

43) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 02/13/2013

There's no need to worry about foreign invaders enslaving Amerika. You people (and you know who you are) are doing an excellent job of enslaving yourselves.

44) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

As long as the public is allowed to know where the cameras are, leave 'em up. Personally, I think there should be more signage saying "this intersection is photo enforced", but otherwise, leave them there. If you don't like where the money goes, you can CHOOSE not to pay it by not running the light.

45) Comment by tball - 02/13/2013

Where is the money going MBW?? for those who break the law..

46) Comment by yDeacon - 02/13/2013

What a stupid concept, cameras and computers instead of humans. Well, we get what we deserve. Replacing people with machines is a terrible model to follow.

47) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

I want my freedom!!!....to break the law. lol

48) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

In a city with our crime problems, are people really arguing that our human police officers should be spending their time sitting at red lights instead to preventing murders or arresting killers?

49) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

Agree with SuzanneMS.... the argument against the cameras is that they are working too well and catching too many people breaking the law?? Key phrase there: BREAKING THE LAW.

50) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

I have yet to be convinced why a ticket from a human police officer is any more "fair" than a ticket from a camera. At least the camera can't factor in what kind of car you're driving, how old you are, or what you look like.

51) Comment by MBW - 02/13/2013

If you don't like paying money to the government, this one is pretty simple: you don't have to. Just stop running the lights. This isn't hard.

52) Comment by nimby? - 02/13/2013

gotta agree w/SuzanneMS and gtinla ; "law abiding citizens" , *****

53) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/13/2013

The arguments against the cameras are that they are catching too many people breaking the law? Not that they don't work, but that they do? And, as usual, our fine elected officials won't let the facts interfere with their preconceived notions.

54) Comment by gtinla - 02/13/2013

I didn't realize how strong the red-light runners lobby was. The last time I looked, running a red light was a traffic violation, for good reason.

55) Comment by dday198 - 02/13/2013

cameras need to go away

56) Comment by watchdogg - 02/13/2013

It's all about money, I hope they vote down this proposal......

57) Comment by Being_Stupid - 02/12/2013

Seems like a sure way to pump money out of our local economy.

58) Comment by 8point6 - 02/12/2013

"At least nine states have prohibited the red light camera systems entirely according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. They are Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Maine." Was it because of the public outcry against them? "Daniel and John Price, assistant chief administrative officer for the mayor, said they have information supporting their claims that the cameras have improved safety. However, they did not make that information available to The Advocate as of late Tuesday afternoon." Why not?

59) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 02/12/2013

Here's a question the Advocate's Rebekah Allen should have asked. "If a motorist takes one of these tickets to court, will that "trial" be held under the rules of civil procedure or the rules of criminal procedure?"