Green light for red light cameras: Column

This nation's appetite for technology is insatiable, and an unprecedented era of innovation has revolutionized how we live in less than a generation.

From the smart phone and Wi-Fi in the tech world, to the mapping of the human genome and life-saving drugs in the medical world, these advances help us to live better, and longer, lives.

So it's puzzling when a life-saving technology arrives, is proven to effective but then has the plug pulled on it without justification.

Such is the case today with red-light safety cameras in communities across the nation. From Florida to Illinois, and Ohio to Texas, legislators and activists have been attacking these devices armed with hyperbole and fed by misinformed generalizations. The facts have been left on the cutting-room floor.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel just ordered the removal of 50 red-light cameras at 25 intersections. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, knows what happens next. When voters in 2010 approved a referendum to ban these cameras, crashes doubled at intersections that had been using cameras.

In Arizona, legislators tried to stop police and sheriff's departments from using red-light or speed safety cameras, despite the fact that Mesa, Chandler and Phoenix have dramatically improved safety at intersections and school zones with these devices. Fortunately, the bill died in the state senate last month.

Cameras, though not a panacea, help change behavior. Each year in the United States, hundreds die and more than 100,000 others are injured in red-light crashes. These are not "accidents," but rather the predictable result of what happens when drivers fail to comply with traffic laws. Enforcement is a key deterrent to this dangerous and sometimes mindless behavior.

The argument against red-light cameras tends to go something like this: A community installs red-light cameras. No one likes getting tickets, and citizens become outraged when they receive citations for cruising through red lights. Fines are collected from red-light runners, and intersections see gradual compliance. Even so, red-light runners agitate and enlist lawmakers to take on this "unfair" technology. Lawmakers look for ways to appease these lawbreakers and remove the "real" offenders: The cameras.

Then there's the other straw men, the "shortened yellow light" and the "right turn on red" defense. Traffic engineers, in accordance with state and local regulations, determine the timing of a yellow light signal with safety as a priority. Politics should never — ever — be a factor in this calculation. But the technology is not to blame.

Others protest red-light safety technology because people are getting tickets for rolling through a red light when turning right. Well, if an officer were sitting at that same intersection and witnessed a rolling stop, the law has been broken. Why should the standard be lowered when there is technological precision involved?

You could understand why a family that had to bury a loved one killed by a red-light runner might be incensed by this trend against cameras, especially in light of the evidence. Tragically, about two families a day in the U.S. will lose someone in a red-light-running collision.

Independent studies affirm the effectiveness of red-light safety cameras. According to 2012 research by the Texas Transportation Institute, cameras provide "a positive safety effect" at intersections and led to a 39% decrease in red-light running right angle crashes, which can be devastating. The study examined 275 intersections.

Though saving lives should be justification enough, the technology offers other benefits:

• Cameras pay for themselves. Taxpayers are not billed when cameras are installed. Offenders get the bill. And in communities like Spokane, Wash., a portion of its red-light-running fines are used to construct sidewalks, crosswalks and other traffic safety improvements. Cities can apply these funds as they see fit.

• Police can focus on other challenges. The technology also multiplies the size and reach of local law enforcement without costing taxpayers a dime. As red-light safety cameras calm traffic, police have more time to attend to other matters. In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Police Chief Glenn Chrisman noted in a letter last year to his city council that the cameras were "a force multiplier."

• Safety means savings: At a time when government budgets are constricting, every dollar counts. Each crash avoided saves money. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that a reduction in fatalities from red-light running collisions, states could save millions in avoided costs of medical, emergency services, workplace costs, legal costs travel delays and property damage.

If the opponents of red-light cameras have their way, we'll turn back time on this life-saving technology. City intersections will revert to the freewheeling days of yore. A driver won't have to think twice about hitting the gas to save a few seconds in his day. Crash rates will rise again, lives will be lost and innocent drivers will be maimed.

But at least red-light runners won't have to deal with those pesky tickets.

David Roberts is president of American Traffic Solutions.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.