There have been a series of debates and lawsuits in the State of Minnesota as a result of the placement of police surveillance cameras at intersections. These controversies stem from concern expressed by motorists about constitutionality. Police force officials are citing that these cameras have been instrumental in catching violators, provided valuable evidence in accident cases and even prevented accidents by making motorists more defensive. Although these cameras are being opposed by motorists, their use have statistically lowered accidents and made the intersections monitored much safer overall and should be used.
The Minneapolis Police Department maintains that the total number of accidents occurring at the intersections with cameras decreased by 16% during the first six months after installation, In addition, the number of “T-bone” accidents where one car broadsides another were reduced by 20% at the intersections since the programs inception.
In ACLU Challenges Minneapolis “Photo Cop” Ordinance, the issues are aired. Whether or not city ordinances that support the use of these cameras are constitutional and in compliance with Minnesota state law is questioned. The article states that when a car enters the intersection it is photographed as it enters, when it leaves and its license plate number. However, no photograph is taken that can identify the actual driver.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota Executive Director Chuck Samuelson is quoted to say “This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver. It turns the notion of due process on its head.” In my opinion, these opponents are splitting hairs in order to avoid violation detection at the intersections and that the best way to avoid the issue is to avoid breaking the law.
In Red-light cameras bring safety, brickbats, Kathleen Murphy writes that the way the cameras are used presumes to guilt of the owner of the car in question whether the owner was actually driving has to be proven in court. Clearly this indicates that in these cases a burden of proof of innocence instead of guilt would be the deciding factor. Murphy also writes “Despite studies that show photo enforcement dramatically reduces accidents, resentment at traffic cameras playing "gotcha" shows why laws using photography to catch violators might not be a slam-dunk for states considering ways to improve roadway safety. Still, advocates insist the hassles are worth it to prevent traffic accidents.
However, this argument can only be considered marginal at best. What is ignored in this light is the fact that as automobile owners, we have a responsibility for making sure that our vehicles are not used for criminal activities or being driven by someone who is not licensed or while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. With this logic in mind, it is reasonable to assume that it is our responsibility to make sure that anyone driving would do so in a safe and legal manner.
In Who Will Run the Red Light, Scott Russell writes that Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems is the provider of the majority of cameras that have been installed in intersections in Minneapolis. Consider the statistics indicating that 24.5 violators per hour were reported for the intersection of East Franklin Avenue & 5th Avenue South. That means that fines collected on tickets issued from just this one intersection amounts to over $3,100.00 per. When faced with these kinds of numbers, cameras certainly pay for investment and installation costs and provide the city with desperately needed funds that can be used for road improvements, funding for police departments.
In Intelligent Transportation Systems: Intersection Monitoring, University Professor Nikolaus Papanikalopoulos writes “collisions between vehicles at urban and rural intersections account for nearly a third of all reported crashes in the United States. This has led to considerable interest at the federal level in developing an intelligent, low-cost system that can detect and prevent potential collisions in real-time. Our research is aimed at the development of a system that uses video cameras to continuously gather traffic data at intersections (e.g., vehicle speeds, positions, trajectories, accelerations/decelerations, vehicle sizes, signal status etc.) which might eventually be used for collision prediction.” Three important goals of the research efforts made by Papanikalopoulos at the University of Minnesota are the integration of data collected by cameras for accurate vehicle position, creating a system for monitoring activity and predicting collision.
The issue that is evident in this situation is that cameras undeniably reduce accidents and efficiently report violators of traffic laws and efficiently monitor and control traffic flow. In addition to catching violators, these cameras also have the ability to analyze traffic flow and alert the appropriate authorities of potentially hazardous situations where accidents would likely occur.
In this age of technology, this is a function that would surely save lives, prevent life devastating injuries and reduce insurance costs as well as curb expenses to the city in terms of police time involved in responding to accidents, clean up, and court proceedings afterward. We all would like to see our Minnesota cities become safer for drivers and pedestrians. Therefore I maintain that the cameras are a valuable asset to the communities in which they are placed.
