Give traffic cameras a year’s test

The first traffic camera to catch red-light violators and speeders powered up at Second Avenue and Tenth Street in Cedar Rapids last week. Eight such devices soon will be located at intersections with high accident rates.

Critics say the cameras are an invasive tool cities use to pinch citizens for revenue. Police and other proponents say the technology reduces accidents and frees up time for officers to patrol and investigate crimes.

We say the cameras must prove their worth within a year.

The city and its taxpayers aren't on the hook for the cost of the system. A private Massachusetts-based company, Gatso USA Inc., installs and operates the cameras for a share of fines.

Police Chief Greg Graham, who argued for the system, estimated the city's revenue will total about $750,000 the first year. He also expects accidents to be reduced - by 20 percent or more - and insists that's the most important benefit.

It's up to officers to review the video and photos and decide whether to issue a ticket. Graham and Capt. Steve O'Konek told us reviewers won't be nabbing drivers for trivial stuff.

Ben Stone isn't convinced. In a guest column we published last month, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa argued that traffic cameras are mostly a way to help local governments make up for lost tax revenue. He says there's little evidence that they make intersections safer. He cited some jurisdictions in other states that have been caught manipulating yellow-light interval times to increase the number of drivers they catch. In other cases, drivers who came to a full stop, as required, then pulled up to see better before turning were ticketed. And Stone wrote that simply increasing yellow-light interval times across the board can improve safety. In Georgia, for example, cities added one second and saw an 80 percent reduction in violations.

Graham and O'Konek countered. They pointed to Iowa State University studies showing fewer accidents in several Iowa cities where the cameras have been in place. They said drivers eventually adjust to longer yellow-light intervals, wiping out initial safety gains. They promised reasonable tolerance when reviewing video - if there's no clear violation, no ticket. And if you want to appeal, there's a process in place.

The chief plans to use only officers who are on medical leave from street duties so that no one is pulled off patrols.

As for measuring results: ISU will crunch accident reports from pre-camera years and camera enforcement periods, then analyze the data monthly and annually.

We also want to see documentation of how it impacts officers' time use and see how the appeal process works.

Give the cameras a year. Then the City Council should scrutinize results to see if the systems warrants a green light or red.