Make city safer with cameras at red lights

THIS YEAR, the Legislature should give red light cameras the green light.

In Mobile, the idea of installing cameras at dangerous intersections has been talked about since 1999. Mobile isn't the only city interested in taking pictures of vehicles running stoplights, but the obstacles are formidable.

Alabama's constitution does not give cities the authority to enact local ordinances, according to an attorney general's opinion that the Mobile City Council sought in 1999: "A city may enact ordinances only within the authority specifically granted to it by the Legislature."

So even though city administrations have wanted the cameras and even though a Press-Register/University of South Alabama poll in 2006 found overwhelming citizen support for the idea, state legislation is required.

Of course, this is a prime example of why Alabama so badly needs a new constitution that concentrates less power in the Legislature and more power in the municipalities and counties where local people are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

In the meantime, red-light cameras have been stopped whenever a lawmaker has tried to push a bill through the Legislature. Last year, a bill that would have allowed Mobile to install the cameras did not even get out of the local delegation, a casualty of feuding among local legislators over unrelated bills.

Let us hope that members of the local delegation resolve their differences before the next session opens in Montgomery. They should remember that they are supposed to be serving their constituents, not special interests, and that as a group they can accomplish more for the Mobile area than they can acting alone.

It would help if the legislators could focus on solving the problem, which is that people run traffic lights in Mobile and cause accidents. In the 2006 poll, 92 percent of the respondents said running red lights in the city was a problem.

Indeed, as far back as 1999, City Councilman Clinton Johnson became a supporter of the cameras after he and his son were involved in an accident he said was caused by the other driver running a red light.

Insurance company studies repeatedly have shown that Mobile has some of the most dangerous intersections in the state. Accidents not only kill and injure people; they drive up insurance costs.

Police officers can be more effective patrolling the city and answering calls instead of sitting at an intersection waiting for someone to run a red light.

Surveillance cameras at intersections are a controversial topic nationwide, and there are legal issues to work through. Last year the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down use of the cameras in Minneapolis, saying that it conflicted with a law requiring uniform traffic laws statewide. The court also said the law shifted the burden of proof of innocence to the owner of the vehicle, who gets the citation regardless of who was driving.

There have also been questions about invasion of privacy, but the Press-Register editorial board sees no difference between surveillance cameras at intersections and surveillance cameras in the downtown entertainment district or in the Wallace Tunnel.

Indeed, these days one's car can be viewed by half the city on the 6 o'clock TV news traffic report.

The legal issues do need careful attention in structuring any state legislation or local criminal laws and civil ordinances. But state and city governments generally have enough attorneys on staff to come up with the proper legal language to withstand a court challenge.

There is more traffic in Mobile since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the growing economy and large numbers of new jobs coming to the area will increase traffic even more.

Cameras taking photos of people running red lights are a well-justified public safety measure.

Source: Press-Register