Add one second, and red-light cameras blink

A red light intersection in Gwinnett County. Photo credit: Kim Smith/AJC

Photo credit: Kim Smith/AJC

One-thousand-one. One-thousand-two. One-thousand-three.

Now say it with me: One-thousand-four.

That single extra second, imposed by the Legislature on the amber light of traffic signals, has suddenly caused cities across the state to rethink the use of red-light cameras.

Five cities in Gwinnett County have announced they would suspend their programs or abandon them altogether. Rome has joined them, and others are sure to follow.

The fourth yellow second, one more than the federally recommended minimum, went into effect on Jan. 1. It applies to any traffic signal monitored by a camera.

Municipalities report drastic drops in the numbers of citations issued. Which means the cameras — they can cost $100,000 a year and more to operate — are no longer self-sustainable.

Critics of the unblinking eyes are gleeful. “I think it has finally proven that it is all about the revenue that is being brought in, more so than about safety,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville), sponsor of the extra second and other restrictions that passed last year.

Georgians are of two minds when it comes to red-light cameras. The technophile in us likes the binary efficiency. Trip the wire and pay a fine. No waste of taxpayer-fueled manpower.

More important, highway stats show that red-light cameras reduce those highly dangerous T-bone crashes, among others.

But the Big Brother aspect troubles many of us. Red-light cameras were first approved by the state Legislature in 2001. Lawmakers immediately prohibited camera shots of the driver.

Privacy issues, they said. In particular, some worried about photographs that might include one’s driving companion. Photographs that might be sent home with the ticket, in an envelope opened by a spouse who wouldn’t understand why you were at a particular intersection, at a particular time of night, with a particular passenger riding shotgun.

Loudermilk, a fifth-year lawmaker, has no worries about being caught in bad company. But because red-light cameras merely photograph the license plate on the rear bumper, the owner of the car who wants to escape a ticket must prove that he wasn’t the driver. And that’s unconstitutional, Loudermilk maintains.

The North Georgia lawmaker also doesn’t like the idea of law enforcement used as a cash machine. Loudermilk said he added the fourth second to yellow lights after he was told by a Department of Transportation engineer that local governments could increase collections by shaving the time.

Red-light cameras have plenty of defenders. “It’s still about safety. The cameras have worked,” said Amy Henderson, spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association. Many cities and counties operate them at a loss, she said. Leftover cash often goes to public safety improvements.

“If the revenue helps you buy a jaws-of-life, is that such a really bad thing?” Henderson asked. Gov. Sonny Perdue, she noted, is pushing increases in fines levied on “super-speeders” to fund a million-dollar state trauma network.

But clearly, temptation exists — with or without technology. On the web site operated by Norcross is a Feb. 5 memo written by Police Chief Dallas Stidd. The city’s two red-light cameras have reduced accidents by a third, but the one-second addition to yellow lights has resulted in an 80 percent decrease in tickets issued. That won’t cover the $398-a-day cost.

His solution?

“Traffic safety and enforcement go hand-in-hand, being one of the highest priorities for the city, especially in thse difficult times,” Stidd wrote. Two new traffic officers would cost less than the cameras, he said, and would generate $602,050 a year — more than twice the sum raised by the cameras.

Norcross City Manager Rudolph Smith, to whom the memo was addressed, said the police chief’s suggestion never went further than the paper it was written on. Officers will not be hired to generate operating funds.

And as far as Smith is concerned, the drop in tickets issued is due to the fact that the cameras worked. People learned to live with them.

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.

7 comments Add your comment


March 22nd, 2009
8:15 pm

Thank you Rep. Barry Loudermilk! Don’t know where your district is but your constituents have a good legislator.

Road Scholar

March 23rd, 2009
6:51 am

Do the signals that have a 4 second yellow phase also have the “all Red” phase, typically 1-2 seconds? It will be interesting to see the accident rates once the 4 sec yellow has been in use for some time.


March 23rd, 2009
7:56 am

Any government-owned camera in a public place taking pictures of citizens is more than likely a bad idea.

“Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither.” -Ben Franklin


March 23rd, 2009
8:19 am

Those cameras are dangerous! Good work getting rid of them!


March 23rd, 2009
10:08 am

Loudermilk is my hero. Is it the same guy that owns Aaron rents?


March 23rd, 2009
12:04 pm

Wah go the whiners who cant drive.


March 23rd, 2009
10:51 pm

“Two new traffic officers would cost less than the cameras, he [POLICE CHIEF Stidd] said, and would generate $602,050 a year.”

Just what most of us already knew, much of what passes for police work nowadays is merely revenue generation.

Add one second of yellow light makes these cameras unprofitable. If they truly cared about public safety, they would add 2-3 seconds.

Here’s the bottom line, a cop sitting out on the side of the road can write about 4 tickets per hour and generate about $300-600 dollars revenue. That same cop catches someone crawling through your window, now he’s got to haul them to the police station, write a report, the city/county has got to put them in jail, feed them, pay a judge and prosecutor to try them, and maybe, they’ll be willing to go the pretrial diversion route and pay a hefty fine. Otherwise, the taxpayers foot the bill for housing them.

Little wonder that many police departments emphasize “traffic enforcement” rather than neighborhood patrols.