I think the red light cameras are a bad idea. Pernicious. (There, Deb, I used an ancient word.)

Why? Because their primary reason for existing is to raise revenue for the city - not enhance safety. Indeed, the city - our police department - will purposely create a dangerous situation at these intersections in order to increase revenue. The mayor knows this - the council members all should know this. They quietly approve of this. I understand it is a one year trial and will be reviewed at the end of the year. I hope all the facts on accidents, tickets, revenue, etc. are made public information on a monthly basis. I expect it to all be kept confidential for a year.

Some fine fellows spoke out against these lights to the City Council. I invite them to contact me for a guest article here. They know more about this than I do. They have the data on this issue.  And I'm hopeful readers will comment - so we can get closer to the truth on this issue.

Now - the City Council will vote - probably 7-0 - on Monday to install these cameras. They want the revenue.  They know there are issues with how these work, but are going ahead any way.  They sort of hope they will work out.  

Here is how it works. The police shorten the yellow light times enough to catch a certain percentage of cars over the mark each month. Simple. If one shorter time does not work then shorten it more until it does work. Also tighten up on what constitutes "running a red light."  The reviewers of the video tapes will be looking for technical violations - with little regard for safe or alert driving.  Indeed, many yellow lights in Bellingham are short-timed now, so expect the police to say they won't shorten the times, because they have already shortened them.  But they will not be able to resist shortening them just a bit more.

But shortening the yellow lights - with a camera system in place - causes drivers to hit the brakes when they realize they are about to "violate" the law. Never mind safety. Drivers will be focused on that light and not other traffic, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. We will see an increase in rear-end collisions. And injuries to passengers as the cars skid to a stop.  Some skidding across cross walks.  

How can safety be improved? Keep the yellow lights at 4 seconds. Or even 5 seconds. In other words, a longer interval where traffic is stopped in the intersection. Ahhh, you say, why not combine that with the cameras for a truly safety minded solution? Because that would not generate enough revenue. Those cameras are expensive - the whole system is expensive. You leave a 4 second yellow light with the camera and you will get very very few tickets. A very safe intersection, yes, but that is not the desired result.

So - if you get one of these tickets, here is your defense. The cameras do not get a very good photo of the driver - like no photo of the driver. Only the car and license. You don't have to deny you were driving as it is the city is obligated to prove you were driving. They can't. They will simply mail tickets to the registered address from car licenses and the system knows that a high enough percentage will simply send back a check, as contesting the ticket is too time consuming. It is literally highway robbery.

Now - use of these in school zones is a different case. The drivers are still not identified, and so it is much better to have a cop stationed there for enforcement. We could up the penalties for serious speeding in these zones if we really wanted to be safer. Also, some of our Bellingham school zones do not have the yellow blinking light - and I would like to know if the two recent school bus accidents were in zones without the yellow lights. Anyone know? Bottom line, school zones could be made safer without cameras but with a bit more concern from our city fathers (no women on the Council.)   This is an example of the mayor pushing a project that is wasteful, invasive, unjust, and not in line with good policy.  Someone did a sales job on him. 

Update:  Below is a link to the ordinance to be passed on Monday.  Section 6 - A & B are unconstitutional.  "A" states their photo is "proof" of a violation.  Sorry, it might be evidence, but it takes a court to establish proof.  "B" says the owner of the car is presumed to be guilty unless they file a sworn statement saying they were not driving. That is self incrimination in it's most obvious sense.  Laws cannot force anyone to make such a statement.  Are the city lawyers just hoping this sort of trash ordinance will fly without anyone noticing?