Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren says she will submit legislation to City Council to end the city’s red-light camera program at midnight on December 31. Outstanding tickets and tickets issued up until that time would still have to be paid.
She cannot wage a fight against poverty while supporting a program that disproportionately affects the city’s poorest, Warren said at a press conference this morning. The people living in the city’s poorest ZIP codes receive the highest number of red-light tickets, she said. And a study on the effectiveness of the city’s program was inconclusive, Warren said. (Curious: Referencing the study, the city’s website says, “A study conducted by an independent engineering and consulting firm has concluded that the Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program is preventing accidents and keeping city intersections safe. The firm has recommended that the red light camera program continue.)
“All programs have a beginning and an end, and it’s time to bring this one to an end,” she said.
The city makes $800,000-$1 million annually from red-light ticket fees.
Cynically, eliminating the program is a smart political move for a mayor heading into a re-election year. The cameras are wildly unpopular for myriad reasons, including the one that Warren cited — the lopsided effect on the poor.
People often get tickets but can’t pay them, so the punishments escalate in severity and people fall farther and farther behind. Eventually they could lose access to their vehicles.
Questions have also been raised about the effectiveness of red-light cameras — critics say they’re about raising money, not promoting safety.
And there have been controversies, including accusations that some communities shortened yellow lights in order to nab more violators.
This article appears in Nov 30 – Dec 6, 2016.
Let’s see. Using this logic, think how much less it would cost them if the police and fire departments stopped serving these areas too.
Meanwhile, I’m sure Lovey will win in a landslide.
“And there have been controversies, including accusations that some communities shortened yellow lights in order to nab more violators. “
This statement is irrelevant to the installations in Rochester unless you present evidence that it’s done here.
The facts are that many habitually blow through red lights. It happens as much or more in the suburbs as in the city. At least we still have Willam Mattar.
If the red light cameras had been used to focus on people who truly were running red lights (going through the intersection when the light had turned red before they even entered the intersection), I’d be all in favor of them. As pretty much anyone who has lived in other parts of the country know, Rochester-area drivers are way worse than most other regions for running red lights.
But to me it looked mainly like a money-grab (by the city, and by the company that ran the program) when drivers were most often cited for much more minor infractions, like coming stopping for the red light but with their wheels slightly over the white line, or someone making a right on red, with no traffic around, who came to an almost-but-not-quite-total stop.
This issue has always made me so uncomfortable but not for reasons anyone seems to think about or notice. I know many well intentioned people who took up the fight against the redlight cameras because they saw it as a program targeted at poor people. The fight painted people in the poor neighborhoods as defenseless victims. This could not have been farther from the truth. If anything, those living in poverty could have been encouraged and empowered if anyone mentioned that they had the power to defeat the redlight cameras simply with good driving and close attention to driving laws.
Telling someone over and over again that they are powerless victims creates a society of powerless victims. I suppose “powerless victims”provides the needed drama to a very simple issue.
It is sad to see people living in poverty being victimized even more…and not by the cameras.
This is great news that Rochester’s red-light camera program will be ending! Thank you Mayor Warren for doing the right thing.
What is the mayor’s plan to increase compliance with traffic laws and make the streets safer for pedestrians and drivers?
This is great news. Red light cameras are always money grab devices, not safety devices. They can exist financially only by giving most tickets to safe drivers for small technical fouls that endangered absolutely no one. If Rochester has an actual problem with a high red light violation rate, then simply adding one second to the yellow intervals will almost always reduce violations and crashes by MORE than the cameras can ever achieve. Without the cameras, there will be no reason to leave the lights with too-short of yellow intervals any longer.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
If putting them in was a money grab, then removing them is a vote grab. I always thought the first ticket to a driver should have been forgiven with a warning. It would have served to teach the driver. If the driver continued to run the lights, they clearly aren’t victims they are law breakers.
“for small technical fouls that endangered absolutely no one”?
Apart from speeding, running a red light in an urban area is one of the most dangerous actions by a driver. Other than sections of Mt. Read Blvd and Ridge Rd, the city speed limit is 30mph. There is no reason a driver not to be able to stop safely at 30 mph. Adding another second to the yellow will only encourage drivers not to stop.
When the light turns green, I look in both directions to make sure all cars have stopped, before I go. Survival of the fittest.
So it’s OK to run a red light WITHOUT REPERCUSIONS if you’re poor? All others have to pay.
But some of the downright assholic replies here, how about the city police and fire and schools stop serving places that don’t currently have red light cameras?
How about instead of targeting minorities we instead stick the camera on EVERY single light. I have noticed how the richer / whiter sections of town don’t seem to have them as often. Also some of the ones with cameras on them have the quickest green to red I have ever seen. I’m on a bike and can’t be ticketed by them, but it’s ridiculous. So if you want red light cameras either make them everywhere or no where.
How does this even remotely fix anything. instead its says ‘Hey go ahead and run the lights since we no longer have anything to stop us’. Maybe what they should be is learn to drive and if they have more than 2 unpaid tickets they should have their licence revoked.
I wrote to the Mayor about this. Her spokesperson said RPD will handle ticketing people who run lights and that RPD will hire more officers in the future.
I feel safer already.
I see the “poor people are targeted victims!” crowd is at it again….
Which makes more sense, that a study was done before these cameras were installed that discovered trouble intersections, or someone said, “hey, lets stick these in poor neighborhoods!” “Yeah, that’s a great idea! We’ll target the people who are least likely to pay their fines!”. Dummies.
Per another news source (which shall remain nameless, but google is your friend): the intersections with red light cameras saw a 21% reduction in accidents. Sounds effective to me, but what the hell do I know? I still think using logic is reasonable…..