Red Light Cameras (Revisited)

I've addressed the evils of traffic cameras in the past. And there's plenty of information on the issue at theNewspaper.com website which is one of the links in the right hand panel. And I doubt I'll change any minds by posting on the issue again. Still there are three compelling reasons to bring up the subject again.

First, it's gotten a lot of coverage recently because Worcester, the second largest city in the state is considering them. Here are links to recent articles in the T&G.

Red light runners can’t hide behind privacy ‘right’

Council cautious on traffic cams

Red lights, cameras, legal tiffs


Second because it ties in with the speed limit issue discussed today regarding the Rt 20 improvements. It's important to understand that most red light violations are the result of short yellows which are based on underposted speed limits. The remainder of red light violations are just plain old driver errors which redlight cameras can document but cannot correct.

Third because of the implication that the red light camera discussion has on Fitchburg General Ordinance (FGO) 169-11.

From the T&G article Red lights, cameras, legal tiffs

"Some communities that have approved the idea — including Lawrence and Springfield — passed local laws giving them authority to use cameras to catch red-light runners. But the enforcement strategy that cities have adopted — to issue civil violations similar to parking tickets — contradict state laws calling red-light violations a criminal offense that warrants insurance surcharges.

Cities that passed their own laws never intended for violators to be punished with surcharges, increasing the cost of insurance policies, because the identity of the driver running a red light is unknown. The cameras shoot a car’s license plate, and the owner of the car receives a civil violation similar to a parking ticket.

But a state board that falls under the Department of Public Safety has advised the city of Lawrence, the first in the state to adopt its own traffic camera law, that it must enforce the insurance surcharge under state regulations."

Consider this petition from the Fitchburg City Council agenda from 19 October 2004.

58-04. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request that the Fitchburg Police Dept. update and increase the fines for traffic violations under FGO 169-11.
(In the third and fourth lines of Section A strike “not exceeding twenty dollars ($20)” and replace with “not exceeding one hundred ($100).
Add a final sentence in this section to read “Any monies received under this section shall be returned to the Fitchburg Police Department in a special
account for the purposes of traffic enforcement, traffic equipment and traffic education programs as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police.”

Subsequently the petition appeared on the 7 Dec 2004 agenda.

58-04. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request that the Fitchburg Police Dept. update and increase the fines for traffic violations under FGO 169-11.
(Be Granted)

And the petition was passed. Notice any similarity to how cities are handling the red light camera ordinances and the section of the petition that I italicized?