If youβve never been cited by one of Tucsonβs red-light cameras, then youβll probably share my dilemma when you look at next monthβs general-election ballot.
Thatβs because youβre being asked to ban these cameras, which make common sense as a tool for stopping or catching red-light runners. Anyone who drives around town knows the feeling of apprehension you get when you see a camera pointing at an intersection: Youβre more careful. The police say they have cut accidents dramatically.
The problem is the camera system operated unfairly for years, much more so in the first few years after the program began in 2007, while setting up a bad financial incentive to issue ever more tickets. And thereβs reason to doubt that if we allow the cameras to keep operating, the city will fix the problems that still exist.
So, do we get rid of a tool that still has potential, or keep it and hope for changes that are unlikely to occur? Thatβs the conundrum you start with when you think about whether to ban these cameras, eight of which operate at major intersections around Tucson.
Then you can consider motivations. Whether youβve ever been cited by one of these cameras seems to make a big difference in how you perceive them. In fact, one 2009 citation is the reason weβre considering a ban at all.
John Kromko is the Tucson gadfly and former legislator who is spearheading this yearβs ballot issue. He was cited in March that year for running a red light when taking a left turn from southbound Oracle Road onto eastbound River Road.
βI was at Oracle and River, trying to turn left,β Kromko told me Tuesday. βThe car in front of me stopped. So there I was. I got flashed. I went to court and told the judge I didnβt intend to break the law.β
It didnβt matter. He ended up paying about $300 in fines and fees, plus another $100 to go to traffic school. If it werenβt so expensive, he said, he wouldnβt have bothered pursuing the issue.
Sounds unfair, right? Well yes, but you have to wonder whether Kromkoβs annoyance wasnβt turned into action by this fact: It was Kromkoβs eighth traffic citation in Tucson in the previous 10 years. Go back 11 years, and it was his ninth.
Since that 2009 red-light incident, heβs had another two traffic violations, one in Tucson for not wearing a seatbelt and another in Marana for speeding at between 16 and 20 mph over the limit. Overall, Kromkoβs 11 citations since 1998 average out to a rate of one every year and a half or so. Most were for speeding.
By comparison, Iβm a pretty average driver β not aggressive but sometimes a speeder or distracted β and Iβve had three moving violations over that same period, the last one in 2005.
When I asked if the buildup of all those tickets is what really motivated Kromko, he told me βNo, not at all.β
βItβs because itβs so unfair,β he said. βThatβs why you get all these people to sign petitions. If it were fair and not a scam, you couldnβt get people to work on it or sign it.β
Itβs true that the group he formed, Tucson Traffic Justice, has been at seemingly every event over the last couple of years and collected more than 40,000 signatures, an impressive number, to put the issue on the ballot. But you also have to wonder how many people simply donβt like the threat of being caught breaking the law.
Kromko and allies such as Lee Strubbe and Mark Spear argue that the definition of the intersection β by state law, you enter the intersection at the curb line, not the crosswalk β leads to citations where no real violation occurred. They also say lengthening the yellow light more could improve safety while reducing citations.
The city has made some changes that have improved the fairness of the system β lengthening the yellow light by a half-second, for example. But otherwise their requests have largely failed. Why?
βThe answer is you canβt because then the scam wonβt work,β Kromko said. βThe purpose is to give tickets.β
But if you buy that presumption β that the purpose of the whole red-light camera system is not to improve safety but rather to make money β then you have to grapple with another question: Why would the conspirators allow the conspiracy to fall apart at the voting booth rather than making some simple fixes that would cost them a little money rather than all of it?
Kromko, Strubbe and Spears all noted that in the vast majority of the 30-plus cities where red-light cameras have come up for a vote, theyβve been banned. In other words, companies like American Traffic Solutions, the one that operates the cameras in Tucson, end up losing their contract.
Council members Steve Kozachik and Paul Cunningham have both pushed for changes to the system to make it more fair. Kozachik is unsatisfied and thinks the city should have forced the company to issue tickets only if the driver has not first passed the crosswalk, or βstop line,β before the light turns red and the driver nevertheless keeps going. He supports the ban, he said, because the city hasnβt made the fixes it should.
Cunningham, who received several red-light tickets before being elected to the council, is happy with the fixes the city has made. But he still thinks the system sets up a bad financial incentive to make issuing tickets the goal, not reducing accidents. He too supports the ban.
Hereβs my imperfect way of resolving the dilemma. As a person who has somehow avoided red-light camera tickets all these years despite my weaknesses as a driver, Iβm going to oppose the ban. I think the cameras are a worthy tool whose problems can be fixed, even if the council has shown little interest in fixing them.
If we vote to preserve the cameras, itβs up to us to make them do it.