[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9014-S9016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RED LIGHT CAMERAS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when I first got out of law school, I had a 
part-time job. I was a city attorney for the city of Henderson. 
Henderson at the time was a suburb of Las Vegas and a relatively small 
community. Now, by Nevada standards, it is a large city, the second 
largest city in Nevada, approaching about 250,000 people.
  When I was city attorney, one of the things I did was prosecute 
people convicted of misdemeanors, but one of the big jobs I had was 
prosecuting drunk drivers. Prosecuting drunk drivers was very difficult 
because a police officer would stop somebody and say: OK, put your 
finger to your nose, walk on the line--all these things they had people 
do who were suspected of drunk driving. They would come in and the 
person charged would say: I hadn't had anything to drink; I don't know 
why I was arrested. And the police officer would say: His eyes were 
bloodshot; I could smell liquor on his breath. It was a factual issue 
as to whether or not that person had been drinking.
  After I was city attorney, along came some new procedures. You could 
breathe into a piece of equipment and it would determine how much 
alcohol was in your system or an even more sure-fire way was blood 
alcohol tests. That way the driver was protected. The driver was 
protected because the driver no longer had to depend on some police 
officer who may have been mad at him, may have had some personal grudge 
with him, may have not liked the kind of car he was driving or the 
color of his skin. Now this person driving could have a blood test 
administered and show that he was not drinking or they could breathe 
into a balloon and a breathometer would tell whether or not he had 
anything to drink--scientific advancements to protect not only the 
accused but also to protect the State.
  When I decided to run for Congress at the beginning of the 1980s, one 
of the people who I recognized was doing some really good things for 
many years was a Congressman from New York by the name of James 
Scheuer. What had Congressman Scheuer done that attracted my attention? 
He gave speeches around the country and in Congress on the need for 
police officers to have more scientific equipment to keep up with the 
more scientific criminals. I thought this was intriguing. I thought it 
was true. Having been a prosecutor and having been a defense attorney, 
I recognized that was true.
  I was able as a defense attorney to do a lot of things to really 
hinder the process. That was part of my job. And because we were more 
in tune with modern scientific things we could hold up warrants and all 
kinds of things. But we have gotten more modern. We have electronic 
warrants that are now available. We have video arraignments for people 
charged with crimes. We have SWAT teams, special weapons people who 
come in and in a special situation can really go into a building, which 
is safer for the people in the neighborhood. These people are experts 
at getting into buildings. They are experts at negotiating with people.
  As I speak, there is a situation going on since the weekend. In 
Michigan, one person has been killed. There is another person 
negotiating in this compound. These are experts that are doing the 
negotiating. In effect, we have become more modern. We are doing a 
better job of law enforcement. We are doing a better job keeping up 
with the criminal element. That is why I want to bring to the Senate's 
attention the promise of something I think is in keeping with what I 
believe is the direction law enforcement should go. That is photo 
enforcement of traffic laws.

  Each year there are about 2,000 deaths and probably about 250,000 
injuries in crashes involving motorists who ignore red lights. More 
than half of these deaths are pedestrians or passengers in other 
vehicles who are hit by these people who run the red lights. Between 
1992 and 1998, about 1.5 million people were injured in these 
accidents. It is easy for us to talk about injuries as compared to 
deaths; maybe they had a broken arm, maybe a whiplash. But lots of 
these people are confined to wheelchairs. Lots of these people are 
injured irreparably. They have been hurt so bad their life is never 
going to be the same, as a result of people trying to save the second 
or two running a red light.
  We have all witnessed it. Probably, we have truthfully all run a red 
light or two. The signal changes to yellow and vehicles continue to 
pass through the intersection with little hesitation. The light turns 
red and one or two more cars blow past in a hurry, speeding through 
intersections until the last possible second. Unfortunately, experience 
has taught us that we can get away with it.
  For example, there are about a thousand intersections with traffic 
signals in the greater Las Vegas area. Odds are very good that the 
police won't be watching when we drive through an intersection a little 
too late. Nevadans have paid a high price for this daredevil driving. 
Las Vegas ranks 12th in the Nation in deaths attributed to motorists 
running red lights.
  I can't help but think that Las Vegas streets, as well as streets 
nationwide, would be a lot safer if there were consequences for running 
red lights. What if there were a traffic officer at every intersection, 
all 1,000 intersections where there are red lights in Las Vegas? Let's 
say there was a traffic officer, or at least that were a possibility. 
The District of Columbia found out that they can do that. In 1999--and 
I have spoken to the chief as late as this morning--the District began 
using cameras to catch motorists running red lights. Thirty other 
districts in the country have similar laws.
  For those unfamiliar with photo enforcement, most use cameras after 
the light has turned red. A photo of the infraction or violation is 
taken and later

[[Page S9015]]

mailed to the red light runner or the address that corresponds to the 
license plate.
  With the stepped up enforcement, motorists in the District of 
Columbia running red lights may have saved a minute or two, but they 
have not been getting away with it. Since the District began using 
cameras, the number of motorists running red lights--I talked to the 
chief this morning--is down 57 percent from 1999, when they were 
installed. They don't have them at all intersections, but drivers think 
they might. So people running red lights has dropped almost 60 percent.
  Think of the people who are not in wheelchairs. Think of the people 
who have not had to go to the hospital. Think of the lives saved as a 
result. In a report released in April of this year, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety state that camera enforcement has changed 
drivers' behavior and may have prevented collisions and injury in car 
accidents. That is a no-brainer. The number of crashes at intersections 
with traffic signals has dropped. Front-end and side injury collisions, 
most commonly associated with red light running, fell as well.
  Most surprising is that drivers' behavior changed throughout the 
city, and not just at intersections with cameras. Even though only 39 
of the District of Columbia's signals were equipped with cameras--the 
red lights--traffic violations have dropped at all city intersections. 
Enforcement is changing the way the residents drive. They are better 
off for it. We all are.
  Nationwide, there have been significantly fewer front-end and side 
collisions following the introduction of camera enforcement. Nine 
States have either granted use of cameras statewide or are allowing 
them. The data makes a compelling case for widespread cameras. Photo 
enforcement of traffic laws helps catch and identify lawbreakers and 
serves as a deterrent for reckless drivers.
  The sad truth is that most drivers obey traffic laws not because they 
will prevent crashes or save lives--although that is what some say--but 
because they believe there is a real chance they might be caught and 
fined. That is why everybody slows down when a police car is nearby. 
When enforcement is present, accidents fall.
  I am sorry to report that in its 1999 session the Nevada Legislature 
passed a bill banning the use of cameras to enforce traffic laws, 
citing concern over government intrusion.
  On this date, I am writing a letter to the State of Nevada, along 
with the majority leader of the Senate, telling them to reconsider 
that. I hope they do. I think it is wrong. I think the legislators in 
Nevada and all around the country should take a second look at the 
promise this technology holds, if for no other reason than the 
powerless lobbying organization that believes strongly in this.
  What is this lobbying organization that has very little power? It is 
called the American Trauma Society. I am sure the Presiding Officer has 
met with them. I have gone to their facilities and seen the people who 
have had these terrible head injuries. Most are traffic related; many 
are people having run red lights.
  On this issue, the American Trauma Society, composed of emergency 
room personnel, would like to have fewer customers, and they point to 
studies that cameras reduce violations by 40 percent.
  The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes a lot of things, 
dropped its opposition to red light cameras because they recognize 
there is a limit even to what they can go to. They believe this is 
something that helps keep highways safe. With a million crashes at 
intersections each year, causing 250,000 injuries and 2,000 deaths, the 
carnage is very bad.
  Why do I raise this issue? Because changing driver behavior in a 
meaningful way will save lives. Studies show that more than 90 percent 
of Americans believe red light running is dangerous. The vast majority 
of citizens and law enforcement officials support the use of photo 
enforcement to stop red light running. Some may not agree. They say 
this is ``big brother.''
  Going back to when I was city attorney, we needed modern law 
enforcement methods to keep up with criminals and also those accused. 
It doesn't matter whether it is cop or a camera; it is getting caught 
that counts. There are consequences for breaking traffic laws. Ensuring 
the safety and well-being of America's families and neighborhoods 
should be one of our top priorities. Photo enforcement supports this 
priority in a way that is constitutionally effective and proven free of 
bias.
  I want those 30 jurisdictions, including the chief in the District of 
Columbia, to know I am going to do what I can to support his position 
and not go off on some side issue or side street issue saying this is 
``big brother'' or that Orwellians are coming after us.
  There is a lot of agreement in the country, not the least of which 
was a very fine editorial in the U.S. News and World Report of 
September 3 of this year written by Randall E. Stoss, ``Choose Life 
Over Liberty.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 3, 2001]

                        Choose Life Over Liberty


                Red-light cameras in dick Armey's sights

                         (By Randall E. Stross)

       In police work, machines have increasingly supplanted the 
     vagaries of human judgment, and I say, Amen! Beginning in the 
     1930s with the pioneering Drunkometer, followed by the 
     Intoximeter, Alcometer, and the Breathalyzer, impartial 
     mechanical devices have indirectly saved countless lives.
       Today, another kind of gadget records objectively and 
     averts future accidents: red-light cameras installed at 
     intersections to automatically record and ticket violators. 
     House Majority Leader Dick Armey is up in arms, however, 
     assailing the camera as an ``unthinking machine'' that has 
     usurped police officers in the performance of their 
     ``traditional duties.''
       When Armey says that the answer to red-light violations is 
     ``putting cops on the beat,'' is that meant in the truly 
     traditional sense of walking the beat? Even if granted 
     dispensation to use unthinking machines with wheels--
     automobiles--police officers giving physical chase to red-
     light-running drivers must run the light, too. With 1 million 
     crashes at intersections each year, causing 250,000 injuries 
     and 2,000 deaths, the carnage is bad enough now.
       As a former professor of economics, Armey surely is capable 
     of grasping the concept of productivity gains that follow 
     automation. When he gravely intones that ``police officers 
     belong on the streets and in the community, not in remote 
     control booths,'' he is demagoguing. The cameras are 
     activated automatically by sensors embedded in the road, 
     capturing in a single frame the car's license plate, presence 
     in the intersection, and the color of the traffic light. The 
     evidence is incontrovertible, wonderfully so if you'd like to 
     see the incidence of death and mayhem decline, and 
     maddeningly so if you believe that a traffic light's signal 
     is best left to you alone to interpret.
       Video on demand. The newest generation of ``unthinking 
     machines'' that Armey detests are actually doing considerable 
     thinking on their own. Digital video systems use software to 
     tract the progress of approaching vehicles and predict 
     whether the driver will stop for the red light. If it appears 
     likely that the driver is going to motor through, the system 
     will extend the red light shown to the cross traffic, 
     removing the chance of a collision with a law-abiding driver 
     about to set off in harm's way.
       EDS, which markets the system as CrossingGuard--admittedly, 
     not as catchy as Drunkometer--is considering offering police 
     departments the ability to post video clips on the Web. The 
     ticket that is mailed out would include a Web address and 
     password; the recipient could have a look and judge the 
     wisdom of contesting on epistemological grounds what can be 
     seen plainly in beautiful, living color.
       What if the culprit was a friend to whom you loaned the 
     car? The systems can be set up to capture the faces of 
     drivers as well as license plates; the degree of intrusion is 
     determined by requirements of varying state laws. What makes 
     the most sense is the approach taken by New York: ``Owner 
     liability'' allows the state to treat red-light running like 
     a parking citation, which makes registered owners responsible 
     regardless of who actually drives. The American Civil 
     Liberties Union dropped its opposition to the red-light 
     cameras with the proviso that the cameras be trained only on 
     the license plates.
       Armey's opposition to the cameras places him somewhere off 
     to the left of the ACLU. He is also taking on a small 2,700-
     member group that may not have a lot of political weight in 
     Armey's Washington, but nevertheless carries a lot of 
     credibility on this issue: the American Trauma Society, 
     composed of emergency-room personnel. They would like to have 
     fewer ``customers,'' and point to studies that show cameras 
     reduce violations by 40 percent.
       The data collected by the cameras might be used for 
     purposes other than tracking reckless drivers--``mission 
     creep,'' in the ACLU's phrasing--and this is a legitimate

[[Page S9016]]

     concern. But a distinction is easily drawn: Using cameras 
     activated only when a traffic law is broken--good; deploying 
     police cameras in public spaces in order to scan in the faces 
     of unsuspecting passersby--bad.
       Armey would have us believe that the police departments 
     that use red-light cameras are not interested in reducing 
     accidents but in maximizing traffic-ticket revenue. His 
     evidence, however, consists of nothing more than listing the 
     number of tickets issued by various departments and the sums 
     collected. New York City, for example, sent out 400,000 
     tickets to red-light runners last year, a truly astounding 
     number. Contrarily, the same facts can be read as powerful 
     evidence of the magnitude of the problem.
       In Armey's home state, the legislature has twice rejected 
     proposals to use red-light cameras statewide. But Garland, 
     Texas, is about to go ahead with cameras anyhow. That the 
     House majority leader, an outspoken opponent of government 
     interventionism, is attempting to interfere in a local safety 
     program strikes Garland's city's attorney as ironic.
       Armey believes the so-called crisis is solved simply by 
     lengthening yellow-light signals. His reasoning is more 
     Orwellian than the cameras. War is peace, and now red is to 
     be yellow.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________