Saturday, September 20, 2008

Hey, Crowley!  Stop the lies!  Red-light cameras are about money, not safety!

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

This past week, Councilmember David Crowley attended a community forum at Christ Church Cathedral to defend red-light cameras.  He actually said the red-light cameras were a public safety issue.  I guess City Council hopes we forget this whole concept was initially introduced in Finance Committee—a pretty strange place to talk about safety issues.  The reality, of course, is that Cincinnati has already included potential revenues from these cameras in their budget planning processes.  That’s why they are so frantic right now:  the successful NAACP petition drive has delayed the installation of the cameras, screwing up a backwards budget process that has put profit before people, with red-light cameras and their representatives pretending the issue is something else.  But we will not forget!  We are not as dumb as you may think, Councilmember Crowley!

Naturally, the City of Cincinnati has not announced which intersections will receive these cameras—but if we are to believe this is a safety issue, then I suppose there must be some pretty deadly intersections.  Surely something would show up in stats about citations and wrecks at area intersections, right?

According to my sources, the following stats were gathered for 2007 traffic citations:

*In 2007, Red Light Violations accounted for only 3% of citations issued by the Cincinnati Police Department.

*Total citations in all of 2007 for red light violations that resulted in crashes—538 of more than 17,000 collisions.

These two items seem pretty compelling.  Red-light cameras are not being implemented to address a significant public safety crisis.  Instead, this is just a way for the City to make money.  Politicians like David Crowley need to stop telling blatant lies at political forums.  Treating the public so poorly is not only an insult, but a mark against the reputation of both his reputation and character.

Since we all know this is about money, politicians like Crowley should just say so—then, we could at least engage an honest discussion about what challenges face our City.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Freedom Fighters says:
20 Sep 2008  at  10:08 pm | #

.

Berding, last week on Newsmakers, claimed that the red-light cameras were off the table ?

http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=33060@video.wkrc.com&navCatId=86

.

says:
21 Sep 2008  at  05:23 am | #

I didn’t watch the clip, but he must have meant “until the election,” or something.

says:
21 Sep 2008  at  10:16 am | #

Years ago, I worked as a safety specialist for a large insurance company. I reviewed thousands of accident reports and out of the many that I reviewed, there were only a handful that did not leave questions unanswered. The police reports were typical. The police weren’t there and they relied on the drivers generally for information. Seldom were all of the causes mentioned. I don’t know how many assumptions or lies went into the statistics that are mentioned, but I will bet that our city council are not able to accurately decipher the statistics.
Although, I am near perfect, I have run red lights. I have never done it knowingly. I only knew it after the fact. No, I have never had a collision as a result.

Red light cameras are a distraction. Red light cameras should not be substituted for the split-second decisions that a driver makes from behind the wheel.

Perhaps we should have recorders follow our government people 24/7 to detect abuses of the law.

says:
21 Sep 2008  at  09:14 pm | #

Cecil Thomas recently tried to bring it back. Council will try to sneak it by at some point.

Even Berding said it was a “money grab”.

Stan says:
22 Sep 2008  at  09:09 am | #

Holy crap !!  Guess what just froze over ????

I asked for locations that were being proosed for the cameras when this first came up.  When I told them that I was going to seek out the accident details for each of the proposed sites, (including near-miss deatail from local residents and businesses) I got the ole’ two-step from Crowley and Thomas.

Any fool (feel free to toss barbs my way) can see that this is about $$$$$$$.

Have we heard what program(s) is/are going to be cut since the $$$ will no longer be available?

R says:
25 Sep 2008  at  03:10 pm | #

I have a question.  If they install them downtown, if you are turning for instance, and a bus, or pedestrians are crossing with the walk/dont walk signals, that leaves you in the intersection right?  If the light changes before everyone has cleared the intersections ( including the many that don’t cross with the crosswalk signals), will you get a ticket?

If so, the revenue stream is going to be WAY higher than they added into their budget.

I have been really watching the lights during my travels, and have found this situation to be the norm.  Do you sit at the green light until the last person darts across the street? If they ignore the crosswalk signals, you tags are going to be photographed while waiting for them to cross.

Check it out, it happens on almost every corner.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: