News from Trump Tower continues to dominate everything else, but let’s focus on a local development – a positive one: Mayor Lovely Warren wants to end the city’s red-light-camera program.
As Warren says, the program has been unpopular since it was initiated six years ago during the Duffy administration. (City Council will hold an open forum on Warren’s request on December 15 –at about 5:15 p.m., following its regular committee meetings – and will vote on it on December 20.)
To my surprise, a fair number of people have been really upset about Warren’s decision.
Well, not upset that she wants the cameras taken down. They’re upset at what she says is the main reason: that the program has disproportionately affected poor people in Rochester.
The cameras were promoted as a public-safety measure: a way to reduce the number of accidents caused by motorists running red lights. They were put up at many of the intersections with the worst accident record, many of which are in or near the city’s poorest neighborhoods.
A 2014 study of the program, updated this year, found that on the whole, the red-light cameras achieved the city’s goal: they reduced accidents. But that wasn’t true everywhere. At some sites, there was no change. At several others, the number of accidents actually increased.
The study also showed that most of the cars getting tickets belonged to people who lived in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Well, Warren’s critics have argued, so what? Everybody has to obey the law. If poor people don’t want to get fines, they shouldn’t run red lights. And if the program has reduced accidents at most of the intersections, why should we end it?
Because, as Warren says, it’s hurting poor people more than other people. Rochester is engaged in an extensive effort to combat its extreme level of poverty. That’s not going to be easy. But we can’t fight poverty with one hand and increase it with the other.
Tickets for the red-light violations are $50, and if you don’t pay that on time, the amount grows. Nobody likes having to spend $50 on a fine, but to Rochester’s poorest residents, $50 can be catastrophic. It can mean the difference between being able to pay the rent and losing your apartment.
It can also threaten your livelihood. Many residents of Rochester’s poorest neighborhoods are the working poor, employed in low-paying jobs. There are almost no jobs in those neighborhoods, so if you’re among the working poor, a car can be essential.
And if you get a ticket for a red-light violation and can’t pay the fine, police may boot your car. Which means you can’t get to work.
A couple of things about the public-safety argument:
First of all, more than half of the red-light violations were for a “technical violation”: not coming to a complete stop before turning right on red. Others were for stopping but with the front wheels just into the crosswalk area. These are not people roaring through a red light. These are many of us, who slow down, look to the left, see nothing coming, and turn right, or hesitate a second before putting on the brakes.
And City Council member Elaine Spaull, who opposed the cameras when Council first approved them, says we could find other ways to reduce accidents: lengthening the time the caution light is on, for instance, and installing timers that show motorists and pedestrians how many seconds remain before the light turns red.
Public policy – in housing, criminal justice, and other areas – has already done great harm to the poor, many of whom are people of color.
But any time we find that a government program – no matter how well intentioned at the start – is disproportionately hurting the poor, we need to change it unless there is a compelling reason to keep it.
This article appears in Dec 14-20, 2016.
No Mary Anna, it’s about personal responsibility. Doesn’t cost a thing, but if the city doesn’t think that’s important in ALL citizens our city will (is) fall apart. If you are serious about this statement–
“But any time we find that a government program no matter how well intentioned at the start is disproportionately hurting the poor, we need to change it unless there is a compelling reason to keep it.”–
then all the democrats should resign. No one has done more harm to the poor and minorities than the democrats.
Hey, if it’s a matter of poor people who break the law, dangerously run red lights and can’t afford to pay the fines, why not have them do some community service or better yet, have them take free defensive driving classes, in lieu of paying a fine?
The entire community would benefit, not just poor people, from learning more about what is covered in defensive driving classes; and that would make the roads safer as well as cut down on their insurance premiums by @ 10%.
Many of the poor people who were getting multiple red-light camera tickets were already hurting. I’ve seen the stacks of tickets piled up long after the jobs were lost, electricity shut off, and eviction notices served.
There is a problem here. Maybe government handouts that encourage a life of self gratification and sloth are part of the problem. However, the red-light cameras were put at intersections with high violation rates. The cameras ended up in the poorest neighborhoods and started causing financial hardships for people who were trying their best to maintain a car to get to and from some crap job. Or maybe they were between jobs, or shared the car. What difference does it make?
This program was never any good to begin with because it was always about the money and never about safety. Nobody lifted a finger to do anything that would make an intersection safer. Redflex always put their profits ahead of our safety. Good riddance you bastards.
“Nobody lifted a finger to do anything that would make an intersection safer.”
Except install red light cameras which reduced accidents at those intersections by 21%.
No one should victimize those in poverty by claiming they are powerless against city government or red light cameras.
I guess kicking people while they are down is okay, if you mean well.
How about just pointing out that individual responsibility is free.
Too bad they didn’t install them in the burbs where the problem with running lights is much , much worse.
Don’t people understand the red light cameras were a program of the CITY. The city has no control over suburban towns and couldn’t put cameras there if they wanted to?
Ok, let me rephrase: Too bad the towns and/or county didn’t put up cameras in the burbs where the problem is worse.
Joe, source?
Last I checked, you can be rich or poor and still know better than to run a red light or stop in a crosswalk. It’s a garbage excuse and she’s only doing this for ammo in a re-election campaign.
Not responsible for obeying traffic laws. Not responsible for paying rent. Not responsible for heat. Not responsible for food. Not responsible for etc, etc.
I must ask, when DOES responsibility begin? It may be too late for some people, but remember the next generations are paying attention. Until personal responsibility is practiced these people and their offspring will continue to be poor. What is the plan for actually HELPING the poor? They don’t need apologists, they need jobs. Actions like this and other city policies repel job creation.
As a (white, suburban) person who has received not one but TWO of these tickets, it has been for squeaking through an intersection on a red light. Just by virtue of technical minutiae these lights should be removed. How about we do a study where people get tickets for roaring through red lights and put the cameras there? And I mean ALL of Monroe county? The fees from that alone would cover a full time DMV in the city.
You either run a red light or you don’t. Rationalizing your ticket for squeaking through is just a weird way to say you didn’t run the light as bad as someone else. Stop making rules for yourself and accept responsibility.
Red Light Cameras Save Lives
We were very disappointed with Mayor Warrens recommendation that to discontinue the Red Light Camera Program be discontinued. Red light cameras save lives. They especially among save young, low low-income Afro American, Latino and Caucasian lives. Ironically, these are the individuals the mayor wants claims to be protecting those same people by eliminating the program. The City Council Members should maintain and improve the program. Here is why.
The mayor pointed out that the programs $50 fine disproportionately affects low- income zip codes, but failed to point out that these were the red light intersections that in those zip codes haved the highest crash rates. These intersections , endangering not only the red light runners but also innocent motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists who live nearby.
Most Rochesterians are unaware of the devastating consequences of motor vehicle crashes. Since 9/11/2001 more that 400,000 men, women and children have been killed in motor vehicle crashes in the US. It is Crashes are the leading cause of death for all groups Americans ages 1-40, including Latinos and Afroican- Americans ages 1-40, according to the 2015 Centers for Diseases Control Mortality Report in Atlanta, Ga.
At current rates, one in two Americans will be admitted to the emergency room because of have a serious motor vehicle related ER trauma injury over a crash during their lifetime2.5 million Americans every year. The economic and societal impact of those crashes disproportionately affect low-income Americans, and amount cost to almost a trillion dollars – $836 billion per /year..far more than the cost of traffic fines. Crashes are a terrible problem for low-income communities, and red light cameras prevent crashes.
The mayors statement that the City of Rochesters SRF traffic engineering study of the red light cameras camera program is inconclusive just doesnt does not make sense if one reads the study. The study conclusions speak for themselves:
1. Overall, the total crash rate (right angle and rear end) on approaches with red light cameras has been reduced by 20.9%.
2. The crash rate for crashes involving disregard of a traffic control device has been significantly reduced (a 53.2% decrease between before and after camera deployment).
It is estimated that the red light cameras are currently providing a total cost saving (crashes prevented) of approximately $1,192,360 per year.
Their conclusion: Based upon the result of this study, the red light camera program has reduced the overall crash rate, the severity of crashes, and related crash costs. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the city continue the red light camera program.
The Rochester Red Light Program earns the city Rochester roughly $1 million yearly. If the program discriminates burdens low- income red light runners, why not budget $100,000 to set up a sorely- needed comprehensive safety education program teaching for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists safe ? The Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency is seeking funding to do just that. Why not allow let violators the option of takinge a 1-2 hour safety course on driver safety to rescind the ticket instead of paying the fine? Some funds could be used to support a drivers education program for the citys high school students which currently doesnt exist surprisingly. City Council Members should vote to improve the Red Light Program, make our streets safer, and educate rather than sacrificing the safety of low-income Rochesterians by enabling dangerous red light violators.
Scott MacRae MD
President Rochester Cycling Alliance
Doug Kelley PhD
Board Member, Rochester Cycling Alliance
Mary Anna, Do you really believe what you write or do you just post opinions that you know you’ll get poor feedback on? I swear you write these articles to just mess with our heads. Those camera’s reduced accidents by 21%…period. The cameras have no idea who is rich or poor, they treat everyone fairly based on actions the driver takes. You instead want to divide people more, based on income. Wouldn’t treating everyone the same make more sense to unify people? I would encourage anyone that gets in an accident at any of these intersections to sue the city because they have now created a safety issue by not policing these intersections with a tool that is PROVEN to reduce accidents. Your lawyer can reference the study that was done, and how the city decided to instead put people at greater risk. Using your thought process, should we empty the prisons of people who commit crimes but are below the poverty level? Should we let shoplifters go if a thief can prove they are poor or downtrodden? I agree with a previous post that stated violators can do community service, or take the 6 hour state approved safe driving course. That way, money isn’t an issue. I wish your paper would promote responsibility, unity, and personal pride for following societal rules.
These cameras, with exception of the very first one at Bertina Forde’s Crossing, were NEVER about safety. Rather they were a way for the City (aka Big Brother) to sit back and passively collect $$$ from the citizenry. I personally received three of these tickets – two for right on red, and one for not wanting to stop quickly in slippery conditions. I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve either slammed on the brakes to stop and was almost hit from behind, or put the pedal to the floor to beat the light and almost ran into the car in front of me. Thank you Mayor Warren for putting an end to this truly offensive program… whatever your reasoning.
How about keeping the red light cameras but making the following changes to the program:
1. Use it to catch true red light runners only. Stop nabbing “technical fouls” like stopping with your wheels on the white line, or making a right on red with no traffic around but not coming to a total stop.
2. Institute a warning notice for the first offense unless the offense is extremely blatant (like going through the intersection 3-5 seconds after the light has turned red).
3. Have some alternative for poor people to make good on their violation — community service or attending a traffic safety class are some alternatives I’ve heard suggested.
FACE BOOK: https://www.facebook.com/chu.chong.7/posts…
“Smh, they just need a majority vote, 2 want to keep it, they only need 3 more, mtg tomorrow. I’m pretty sure everyone was happy to hear the red light cams were going to be stopped after this year, let’s hope that doesn’t change.”
Comments
Hen Ju
Hen Ju — Howard thought u may be interested
—————————————————————–
Howard J. Eagle
Thank you. I am. Not sure that I can make it down there today (upon such short notice), which I’m sure Conklin and Haag arranged intentionally. If not, maybe we should send written comments — supporting Mayor Lovely Ann Warren ‘s Proposal.
The BIGGEST problem with the Red Light Cameras is that — it was a RACIST CONCEPT (right from the very start) — because of where the majority, if not all 32 cameras were placed — definitely within, or in close proximity to overwhelmingly, predominantly, Black and brown neighborhoods. Some will attempt to make the invalid argument that cameras were placed where the majority of infractions were occurring — straight-up BS. I don’t think anyone in the city runs more red lights, and/or violates other traffic laws, especially DWI laws, than the mainly white, drunken suburbanites who hang out on Alexander Street, and other areas of the so-called East End every Friday and Saturday night. HOW COME (JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE) THERE ARE NO RED LIGHT, AND OR BLUE LIGHT CAMERAS OVER THERE??? — not to mention the criminality of the company that’s managing the Red Light Program:
https://www.facebook.com/chu.chong.7/posts…
council@cityofrochester.gov
Carolee.Conklin@cityofrochester.gov
Molly.Clifford@cityofrochester.gov
Elaine.Spaull@cityofrochester.gov
Matt.Haag@cityofrochester.gov
Dana.Miller@cityofrochester.gov
Adam.McFadden@cityofrochester.gov
Michael.Patterson@cityofrochester.gov
Jacklyn.Ortiz@cityofrochester.gov
Loretta.Scott@cityofrochester.gov
scheduling@cityofrochester.gov
115,000 unpaid tickets valued at $8 million. So what’s the plan to collect ms Warren? That’s a lot of money for one of the poorest cities in America to leave on the table.