Putting Out The Red Light

When looking to find out why something is the way it is in government, the best advice is to ask Cui Bono, or “to whose benefit?” The natural progression then becomes following the money. Applying these two rules to the issue of Red Light cameras, it quickly becomes clear who benefits and to where the money flows, and we arrive at our answer to the question: why?

Last week the KCMO Police Department released the details of a study concerning the safety record of Kansas City’s red light cameras. Surprising many, the study revealed that wrecks have increased at intersections with cameras, while intersections without them saw fewer crashes. According to the report, wrecks increased 18% on average at most of the intersections overlooked by cameras. Injury accidents increased at three quarters of these intersections, including the only fatality in the study’s timeline.

 American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the corporation which holds the contract for the cameras has denied the validity of the study. ATS spokesperson Steve Glorioso declared in an interview with Fox4 News that the cameras are indeed working. How else might we expect the company’s representative respond?

Of course they’ll attempt to discredit the Police Department study and highlight only the perceived benefits in safety that their hand-picked studies indicate. The simple fact is that independent researchers, such as Professor Rajiv Shah, whom the Star’s Christine Vendel referenced, support the current findings. While red light running tends to fall in cities with cameras, the total number of accidents rise dramatically.

If the cameras are not providing the boost in safety which City residents were promised, the only alternative purpose must be to generate revenue from local motorists. To that end it simply comes down to collusion on the part of big business and city government, where the two join forces in order to extract money from the population.

The business model is, roughly, as follows. ATS and other similar companies develop red-light cameras. They next move to use the long arm of government to sell this equipment and collect payments. In some cases it’s so lucrative that cameras are installed free of charge, because they’ll easily collect enough fees to offset the initial loss.

The municipal government then agrees to employ a handful of officers reviewing footage and writing tickets. The two groups then share the proceeds from the racket. ATS rakes in profits and the city enjoys a new flow of money without having to impose new taxes. They both win. The losers end up being the tax payers who have less money, fewer police on the street to protect them, and a much higher risk of being involved in a collision while moving about town.

It’s unclear exactly how much has been collected over the previous couple of years, but estimates could put the number in the tens of millions. If the data showed that we all had a much safer and less stressful commute I suppose the cost might be worth it. But that’s not even a debate we can have right now, since we know that safety concerns have not been met, and the company responsible is trying to suppress this fact.

A public meeting will be held on February 28 at city hall concerning the issue. With luck, residents will attend and voice their concerns over safety and the true purpose of the cameras. Demonstrators with the Liberty Restoration Project were at one camera intersection this past weekend and they plan additional protests in the coming weeks to help educate motorists. A petition to remove the cameras has also begun to circulate. Let’s hope they’re successful.