D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
March 2010
The Fast and the Furious
Some Las Crucens are seeing red over the city's year-old traffic camera system.
By Jeff Berg
There are four red light districts in Las Cruces. No, not the kind that would raise eyebrows among those who are appalled by "victimless" crime, but rather four major intersections in the city where "Redflex" cameras have been installed to vicariously nab traffic offenders and fine them anonymously. The cameras are set up to nab red light runners, speeders and right-turn-on-red violators.
 |
With all of the carping about the city of Las Cruces' decision to install the red light cameras hither and yon, one might think that the city had decided to revoke the driver's licenses of all of the city's lousy drivers. Admittedly, that would mean that most of us would be on foot, bike or the much-maligned Roadrunner bus system, but that's not quite the case. The controversial red light cameras are meant to increase public safety as well as the city's revenue.
Las Cruces must surely be the home of the old elbow-in-ribs joke that "traffic lights are only suggestions." In all the places I have lived, I have never seen lights so flagrantly ignored as they are in the sometimes appropriately named "city of crosses." I've learned that if I'm first in line at a traffic signal, I always look both ways when the light turns green, or if there is a car in the lane next to me, I allow that driver to "ride point" and enter the intersection first.
After all, this is a city where I often see drivers sit on railroad tracks waiting for red lights to turn green.
Perhaps with this type of activity in mind, about a year ago city officials approved installation of a system from an outfit called Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian company whose US base is in Phoenix. Redflex's founders are brilliant: They don't sell the system to a municipality and walk away; they stick around and get a percentage of the profits. In fiscal year 2009, the company netted $9.6 million on $130.9 million in revenue.
Redflex, according to its website, has been around for more than 20 years, working with various burgs to stop scofflaws and make them pay through their wallet for traffic infractions. Redflex can also set up camera systems for railroad crossings, stop sign runners and license plate ID, as well as mobile cameras for roving use.
|
Nearly 250 cities and towns around the US now use Redflex photo enforcement. In New Mexico, Santa Fe and Albuquerque are on board, as are our neighbors to the south in El Paso. Across the country, city size seems to matter little, since Redflex is in place in places like Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, and San Jose, Calif., but also in Fife, Wash. (population 5,000 in the 2000 census), and good old Bullhead City, Ariz., population about 40,000. Other companies have contracts with other cities, including Denver, Los Angeles and New York.
Arizona's Department of Public Safety introduced the cameras in September 2008, but is now pondering removing those used on highways to nab speeders. (The system snaps only those going 11 mph or more over the limit; Las Cruces will not disclose the limit set on its Redflex cameras.) The department had 76 cameras in place around Arizona as of January, which had led to 700,000 tickets in a single year. Since it is nearly impossible for these tickets to be followed up on, however, only $36.8 million of the $127 million in fines levied had actually been collected. Drivers who get photographed know this, and have a predilection to ignore the ticket that comes in the mail. Since the state has no way to prove a driver ever actually received a ticket in the mail, it's tough to enforce.
Collection agencies can be used for follow up on Redflex offenses, although at least in Las Cruces, this method is not overly effective — yet. Vehicle confiscation is also allowed as the "ultimate" punishment.
In Las Cruces, debate has been hot and heavy over the use of the cameras, which are set up at only four major intersections (see box). If you get caught, it will cost you 100 big ones. From March 30, 2009, through Jan. 8 of this year, 22,657 violations had been issued (remember, this is for four intersections), and $234,068 collected for the city. Redflex and the state of New Mexico share in this cash-cow pie — Redflex actually gets more than the city does — so the city of Las Cruces gets only about 25% of the total collected. There was no upfront cost for the city of Las Cruces to install the Redflex system. All monies come from you, the errant leadfoot. The city thanks you.
To put it mildly, not everyone is a fan. For an, ummm, opposing view to Redflex, check this guy's rambling website: dontflashmebro.com/chapter6.html His comments at the city council workshop meeting I attended almost resulted in him being escorted from the council chambers. At least his site disavows the extreme action taken by one angry violator (presumably) in Phoenix last May, where a Redflex photo-radar operator was killed. (Redflex also operates internationally, and in England some cameras have been set on fire.)
The argument continues whether this program is for public safety or for increased city income. The program was heralded as one for public safety when it was first thrust upon a somewhat indignant citizenry, but according to an editorial in the Las Cruces Sun-News in late January, none of those funds had yet been used to help with public safety.
But that doesn't mean the red-light cameras' mere presence hasn't had an effect. A few months ago, I received a love letter in the mail from the city of Albuquerque, replete with a picture of my Yugo (Peugeot was in the shop, again) and its license plate making a left turn on a red light. I don't recall the incident, but the picture does show that I was in the intersection (waiting) for the oncoming traffic to pass (and hopefully not run the light) before I turned. I did not barge out into the four-way, but I guess it was a situation that I would have had to prove otherwise. It was easier to send them $75. I'll write it off on taxes as "research" for this article.
After that, I made a decidedly renewed effort to watch my driving habits. No longer do I exit on an entrance ramp from the Interstate, drive the wrong way down a four-lane highway and not move when someone comes straight at me with flashing lights and honking horn, nor switch lanes at a stoplight to gain one car length — all things I have actually seen on New Mexico streets and highways.
Albuquerque's new mayor has said that it is time for an "independent review" of its Redflex program. Albuquerque has 20 cameras at various intersections, under a program that started in 2005. A pilot program that started in 2004 at two intersections shows a nearly 3,000-citation decrease over six months, a small drop in "right angle" wrecks, and another small drop in rear-end collisions. (So much for the red-light runners' defense that they don't think the guy behind them will stop, so it's "safer" to run the red light and breeze through a busy intersection.)
Las Cruces' camera system is based on the Albuquerque model, and will probably be increased by 2011.
Norman Fleeman of Las Cruces had a similar experience to mine, but with the Las Cruces cameras. In a recent letter to the editor of the Sun-News, he describes his experience, after which he paid his fine, and questions the $304,742 paid to Redflex by the city. He suggests that that money could be used to hire additional police officers and "improve public support."
Fleeman does have a point, and perhaps he was at the recent Las Cruces City Council meeting that I attended. Officials outlined the use of the funds that are collected, all of which will eventually be plowed back into traffic safety or equipment for the city police department.
Another wave of outrage by the citizenry of Las Cruces was inspired by the revelation that those who make an otherwise legal right turn on red while going more than 12 mph are also getting nailed.
But if you do get caught, you can also think of your being fined-by-mail experience in a different light. The Redflex system has made these types of traffic violations civil offenses, thus eliminating them as notches on your driving record, which otherwise at some point would cause you to lose your license, assuming you have one. You can compile 3, 5, 10 tickets this way, and pay only through your pocketbook, not by loss of driving privileges.
All in all, most drivers will have an opinion on the Redflex system. The company's website (www.redflex.com/html/usa/index.php) provides some interesting figures on the increase in safety.
My advice, whether you want it or not, is to put down the stupid cell phone, pay attention to the guys and gals around you who don't, stuff parking meters with chewing gum, and slow down. Perhaps the only excuse you should have to run a red light is to be color blind.
That's what I'm going to say next time.
Senior writer Jeff Berg casually ignores all parking fees anywhere he goes.
| Getting a Green Light
Traffic signal patents date from 1910 on and were numerous prior to the version patented by Garrett Morgan in 1923. But his version was probably the first designed by an African-American inventor, and it's essentially the design still used today. Morgan, who also invented an improved version of the gasmask in 1912, owned a tailoring shop in Cleveland. After a successful if unplanned demonstration of the gasmask in 1916, in which he used the device to enter a construction tunnel to save the lives of several men after an explosion, Morgan took a more active interest in developing safety devices to help humankind. (Predictably, some fools were hesitant to use a device invented by a black man.) While out and about one day, Morgan witnessed a traffic accident between a horsed carriage and a horseless one. The driver of the auto was injured, and the horse had to be put down. But this became an incentive for Morgan, who set out "to develop a means of automatically directing traffic without the need of a policeman or worker present." He patented an automatic traffic signal, which he said could be "operated for directing the flow of traffic" and "providing a clear and unambiguous 'visible indicator.'" It's unclear whether Morgan's device was electric or hand cranked. But every time you see (or run) a red light, you can thank Garrett Morgan. Traffic-light invention competition appears to have been fierce about this time, as a Detroit policeman, William Potts, developed a different version, which was in use at 20 Detroit intersections within a year. And as early as 1912, a Salt Lake City police officer, Lester Wire, decided to do something about the traffic in that city, creating the first red/green signal. Even though it has yet to be installed in Las Cruces (try driving through the lights on University Avenue over I-25 at any time of day), the first interconnected traffic signal system was also originated in Salt Lake City, when six connected intersections were controlled simultaneously from a manual switch. England was way ahead of the game, however. There, a gas-powered, manually triggered traffic signal was designed by railway engineer, J.P. Knight. The device was installed in 1868 outside of Buckingham Palace. Ironically, that was also the scene of the first traffic-light fatality, when the contrivance exploded in early 1869, killing the operator
|