Home › Opinion & Editorial › Guest Columns
Guest commentary: Red-light cameras can help make our roads safer
RELATED STORIES
More Guest Columns
- Guest commentary: Here comes the sun
- Guest Commentary: Project Innovation: Moving toward economic sustainability
- Guest Commentary: Substance-abuse survey should be wake-up call for parents
Tell us about it
- What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
- Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
- Upload photos & videos
- More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy [?]
Traffic safety is about taking a comprehensive, common-sense approach to keeping our roads safe for our Collier County residents and visitors.
Safety on the roads is one of the most important missions of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, and it is a goal that we strive for daily through education and enforcement efforts. Today it makes sense to use the technology of red-light cameras to accomplish what our community demands — keeping drivers and passengers safe and ticketing those who break the law.
National experts say these cameras save lives, and with a visible enforcement presence we believe they enhance our already strong program. We have listened to the public and the suggestions of other law-enforcement professionals about the use of red-light cameras and how this modern, effective and efficient technology can and will save lives in Collier County.
In response to a recent misleading commentary on red-light cameras in Collier County, I’d like to inform the public about our approach to traffic safety and how red-light cameras can make us safer as we drive to work and to school.
In 2007, Collier deputies wrote 10,974 citations for drivers running red lights, stop signs and other traffic-control devices. That is part of an active traffic program that has been recognized nationally for its efforts and has worked to reduce crashes.
For example, this focused effort by the dedicated men and women of the Sheriff’s Office has reduced the number of traffic accidents by 800 when comparing the 2007 and 2006 figures. Fatal crashes in 2008 have decreased by nearly 50 percent. Claims made to portray the agency as not active in traffic enforcement are false.
References in the commentary made to various studies contained incorrect or partial information. For example, the study from the University of South Florida associate professor cited in the commentary was rebuked by that university’s director of the Center for Urban Transportation Research. He stated that that study was a synthesis of other studies, but did not include studies that support the effectiveness of red-light cameras, a flaw in that report.
There are numerous studies that indicate red-light-camera enforcement has the effect of significantly reducing the most serious head-on and side-impact crashes at intersections. Some studies do show an increase in rear-end crashes as drivers begin to stop for red lights as required by the law. This routinely happens whenever a new traffic light or even a stop sign is installed, county transportation officials say.
The Virginia Transportation Research Council study quoted in the commentary was also misleading. Officials in that state decided to keep the red-light-camera program going, citing the technical, fiscal and operational feasibility and the potential to improve safety throughout the state.
Locally, Collier County has adopted many of the guidelines of the International Transportation Institute and many of the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration for proper implementation of photo-enforcement programs. The county has extended yellow light intervals, set up “all red” light intervals and adopted ordinances that preserve the due process rights of violators, including that all violations are viewed by a deputy before a notice is issued.
Furthermore, there is no “loophole” in the law that allows us to set up red-light cameras, as the writer suggests. There is a 2005 attorney general opinion that recognizes the authority of local governments to allow counties to regulate traffic, including using cameras.
The Sheriff’s Office does not view cameras as being a revenue-generating tool. The agency receives no money from the $125 fines. We would like to see 100 percent compliance with red lights so no notices would be issued.
Two years ago, I was assigned to do the research, seek the legal opinions and present the information to the public on this issue. The more I learned about the technology, the more I was convinced that it was a smart idea.
At the dozens of public forums that I attend each month, I can tell you that the first question I am asked is about traffic and the second asks when we’re putting in the cameras to stop red-light runners. The public knows the value and wants us to move forward.
Please visit www.colliersheriff.org and click on our traffic blog, The Traffic Stop at http://ccsotraffic.blogspot.com/ to watch a video about the effectiveness of red-light cameras. If you see traffic problems, please alert our traffic hot line at 530-ZOOM.
We can improve road safety if we work together as a community.
Drive safe.
Editor’s note: Rambosk is a Republican candidate for sheriff.
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Now this is a commentary that really makes sense in this important issue. Thanks Kevin for caring about my family's safety out there on our roads.
#1 Posted by grillerdad on June 15, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Hunter/Rambosk team is avoiding the facts that red light cameras increase accidents. In addition, they are banned by Florida law on state roads. They do however generate revenue, which is obviously what this dynamic duo of CCSO finest would like to do, even though it might not go to the sheriff's office.
#2 Posted by straighttalker on June 15, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Straight talker, try reading the commentary before commenting. Might come in handy.
I really wasn't for cameras, but after reading this, I think it's a good idea. Lots of crazy driving around here.Hope it helps.
#3 Posted by tombryant64 on June 15, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
more smoke and mirrors from the sheriffs department and candidate Rambosk. The Big Brother mentality has got to stop! The research is clear -- the cameras are a big sink hole into which our taxpayer dollars will never be seen again. There will be no real return, in dollars or in increased safety. To the contrary, accidents will increase.
The other commentor had it right, this is just an excuse to avoid the real police work and traffic enforcement that his needed in this county.
Ortino has made a much stronger case, and again like the other commentor, Ortino will be the better sheriff. Anyone who cares about keeping government small, and holding offenders, not vehicle owners accountable for violations, can see that.
Rambosk is a joke. Ortino for sheriff.
#4 Posted by longtimecitizen on June 15, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A nice try from candidate Rambosk, but he is all wet. Everyone who read his comments needs to go back and read the letter from our new sheriff, Victor Ortino.
Ortino has done methodical, scientific reserch into this issue. And the results are, despite Rambosk's eloquent denials, all too clear. The cameras are a liability and will not benefit enforcement or safety.
Go back and read the article by (sheriff) Ortino. The cameras are bad, and Rambosk is bad for the sheriffs department and the county. Ortino is the man we want and need for sheriff.
#5 Posted by W_Coyote on June 15, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is America. I dont want big brother or the sheriffs department watching my every move. And I dont want my car cited for running red lights. If I run a red light, give me the ticket. Or if someone else using my car runs a red light give him or her the ticket. NOT ME JUST BECAUSE IT WAS MY CAR.
And dont increase the chances of a rear end collision just because the sheriff or the county commission wants to get more money.
The cameras are a bad idea all around, and an expensive idea too.
#6 Posted by Toesmom on June 15, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Red-light cameras make sense.
You don't need to worry about Big Brother if you're not doing anything wrong and you won't slam into the car in front of you if you give yourself some space and slow down.
Red-light cameras are way less expensive then paying deputies to patrol the intersection.
Kevin Rambosk is a common sense candidate.
Go Kevin!
#7 Posted by lynncon on June 15, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you. You have all of our votes in my family, Kevin Rambosk. Looking forward to your approach to the CCSO.
#8 Posted by BlueTonguedVole on June 16, 2008 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I appreciate Rambosk for looking for a remedy to this problem and working to find a solution.
Longtimecitizen, nice comment.
I don't think the hundreds of men and women at the S.O. would appreciate you saying that they are avoiding real police work and traffic enforcement.
They work hard and put their lives on the line every day to keep you safe.
I for one and thankful to them.
#9 Posted by lovenaples2 on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see people running red lights all the time. They need to be stopped. I applaud Kevin Rambosk for leading the charge with this. He is saving lives - perhaps yours or mine.
#10 Posted by snicksnack on June 16, 2008 at 4:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done, Mr. Rambosk.
You've got my vote!
Thank you to you and all of the CCSO deputies who are out there daily, saving lives and making a difference.
#11 Posted by scotsa on June 16, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rambosk & most of the entire command staff are a joke. Just look at the Chris Freeman fiasco. Covering up sexual harrassment for one of their own. Wouldn't of happpened for a regular deputy who isn't wearing the tattoo. Rambosk is just the guy we need. He doesn't have the balls to resign & stand up to Hunter & tell the public what is really going on. Yea we need someone who participates in all the cover ups.
#12 Posted by longtimecitizen on June 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done, Kevin!
I think we're all appreciative of your efforts and thank you for running for Collier County Sheriff!
#13 Posted by nickm on June 16, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My husband and 12 year old son were nearly killed in a red light running crash several years ago. So I know how horrible the problem is here in Naples. After 6 months of therapy, my husband was finally healed. It was a long road.
I am glad that someone is taking the problem seriously. You have my vote, Kevin. I think you are taking a common sense approach. I appreciate you taking the time to inform us all.
#14 Posted by seaworthy on June 16, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This sounds very fishy from Rambosk. Especially, when he says the fatality rate is down in 2008. According to most staticians, the downturn in both crime and fatalities has more to do with the fact that economy here is pushing people out of Collier. Also, we've only had a half year of a modest tourist season as of yet. How can Rambosk take credit for that? The other posters are correct, what a joke. The other issue here is if the cameras are installed, why cant someone from DOT or someone else view the videos for the violations? Why do we have to trust a deputy? Why should we trust a deputy with all the lying that's been going on? Also, if a deputy is watching the videos and making determinations on who gets the ticket, what happens when one of his croneys run the lights or maybe someone he happens to protect? Better wake up Collier.
#15 Posted by ccso_id on June 16, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tdavis,
I think you just turned in front of me on my way to work after running a red light...You had an Obama bumper sticker???
Someone should watch you. Closely. And daily. Maybe hourly.
#16 Posted by sunnidaz on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I read that somewhere in Texas they are turning off the red light cameras, in some cases removing them altogether, because after a while they are not the revenue generators they were to start with.
And that, quite frankly, without the red light runners getting caught they could not afford to keep the cameras running.
#17 Posted by Neal on June 16, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I saw the 60 minutes show on the cameras, they were programmed by a private company, the yellow light on the stoplights with a camera attached was less than 2 seconds, as opposed to 15 seconds on the lights without the camera. The company that had programmed the lights got a percentage of the take, the city had to find everybody (except the police and firemen) guilty to satisfy the contract.
#18 Posted by sunnydaze on June 16, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I do not see the arguments opponents make as much as I do supporters. I would rather have a camera with a recording that can be reviewed over a deputy who could miss a situation entirely, only see part of it, or possibly misinterpret what they see.
In the case of rental cars I could possibly see that argument. I would suggest a fine perhaps but no license points or other penalty since the ID of the driver would be uncertain.
#19 Posted by pauls on June 16, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some interesting articles about traffic cameras..
GREAT ARTICLE from Dallas, Texas!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte...
GREAT ARTICLE!!!
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/
#20 Posted by Jadip811 on June 16, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)