There is a new road rage in America these days.

It is not irresponsible driving as typically associated with the word, but rather this rage is a fad, the increasing implementation of speed and red light cameras in our communities. I have received two traffic cam tickets and can personally testify to the absurdity and confusing nature of the process. This unconstitutional epidemic violates our legal rights as US citizens and is not as effective in reducing hazardous traffic incidents as other proven methods. On their website, motorists.org, the National Motorists Association outlines 10 arguments to prove the ineffectiveness of these tools in motor safety. I will present a truncated version of these arguments, for otherwise they would be too many to go through in one sitting. At the conclusion of this speech I urge you to take the time to protest the use of these cameras as sufficient grounds to reduce danger on the roads and implicate a motorist in any violation. The first point I would like to make concerns the claim that traffic cameras improve safety. This is false traffic cameras do not improve safety. The biggest advocates for red light and speed cameras are the manufacturers who make them. Believing their arguments is akin to believing Billy Mays when he tells you the ShakeWeight actually works. The makers of these cameras are given a cut of all the fines and income the cameras bring in. The amount they receive may be in excess of 50%. In addition, the other party in the transaction, usually the city of use, also has a vested interest in the money brought in from these cameras. The Herald, a newspaper based out of Everett in the state of Washington, reported in 2010 that the cities traffic cams brought in over 16% of the cities revenue in one fiscal year. The mutual interest both the manufacturers and using cities has in these machines, to see that they make money contributes to a question of whether the government has safety of the people as an utmost priority. It is possible that raking in the dough from these machines has been put at the forefront of the public agenda. Where I live, the Cedar Rapids Metro Area has reported great drops in crashes from before the traffic cams were introduced to the current moment. In 2008, the Police Department lists the number of winter crashes in one 24 hr period as 66 total. By 2011, last year, that number had dropped to 8 crashes during the worst winter storm. What the city fails to present to the public is the difference in the severity of these storms by which they are comparing numbers. The winter of 2007-2008 was one of the worst in recent memory, as evidence by the historic floods that summer, which I'm sure all of you can remember. Much of the cause for these natural disasters was excessive precipitation months earlier, by the fall of great amounts of snow and freezing rain. The winter of 2010-2011 was not so harsh. To put it in more relateable terms, in the 2007-2008 winter I can recall my school district having five snow days and one 2hr delay. Compare that to last year, when we had a single snow day. That's right, one. The data Cedar Rapids presents is flawed and not an accurate indicator as to the effect of these cameras in making winter driving safer. Perhaps the most sobering statistic of all is what has occurred in Washington DC, where the government installed traffic cams in 1998. According to the Washington Post, in a period of 6 years, up to 2004, there was an increase of 107% in total traffic accidents,

which includes an 81% increase in fatal accidents. Say what you will about the effectiveness of the cameras, but the numbers do not lie. Many cities neglect to have the information from studies done on their traffic accident rates made readily available to the public, perhaps because they reflect what was shown in Washington DC. I looked up moving violations for the Cedar Rapids Area and in the most recent data from May 2011, the city reported that these transgressions had increased in almost every major category of traffic violations from the month before. An increase is not what we are ever looking for with these cameras, especially 3 years after they have been put in place. The effectiveness of these tools is clearly called into question by this data. The notification process with these violations is also subject to a great amount of question. Take my case for example: I had a violation in mid-May. However, I did not receive the notification of this speeding instance until late June. It really ruined my birthday. However, in July I got another little surprise in the mail. Turns out I had another speeding ticket from early June. Did my transgression from May help me to check my driving habits and avoid another occurrence? No. Because I was not notified until 6 weeks after the event had occurred, it is clear to me at least the the city does not have the ability to make these cameras effective tools in reducing traffic violations. The legality of these errant machines is also called into question. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Who is the the witness when you are caught by a traffic camera? Our court system is based on a person-to-person relationship between the accuser and the accused. It is not constitutional and therefore not legal for a person to be convicted of a transgression without a human witness to testify against them. This practice is in violation of the innocent until proven guilty ideal that every law system in the history of the world has exercised to great success. Instead it is the opposite: a person receiving their citation must prove himself or herself innocent. This is a disgusting abuse of governmental power and has no place in the civilized world, let alone a progressive country such as America. The Orange County Supreme Court has already ruled in 2010 that pictures and videos from traffic cameras is inadmissible in a court of law, stating that it is hearsay. Hopefully the action from this body provides a precedent in future cases and prompts the legal system to a total rejection of all evidence submitted from these cameras. Now that I have covered arguments against the effectiveness of traffic cam, let us move on to some alternative solutions that are proven to work. What alternatives do community governments have to these constitution-violating cameras? As a matter of fact, the most effective way of reducing traffic accidents and increasing safety at intersections is to increase the length of the amber (or yellow) light. In Fairfax Country, Virginia, it was shown that increasing the time period of the amber light by only 1.5 seconds decreased the average amount of violations caught by the cameras from 52.1 before to 2 per day after the action. This is a enormous drop of 94%. This is a greater decrease than any traffic camera has ever shown. It is hopeful that more communities take action such as this in the future. Another option that could be taken is to increase the length of time that the intersecting roads both have red lights. However, government has shown themselves

reluctant to do this, claiming that The amber light is based on speed and traffic roadway conditions. It is also based on the ability to stop at that speed. The Cedar Rapids Police has no way of changing the yellow light timing. This excuse is clearly based on the income received by the cameras. Millions of dollars are at stake here, and the city would rather steal that income from its taxpayers than acknowledge the flaws in the system. This is a great travesty in every community that employs traffic cams at this time. In conclusion, I have clearly show the deficiencies and questionable methods which are currently being utilized in the use of red light cameras. The failings of traffic cameras withing American communities is clearly of great concern to anyone who has ever driven a car. I would strongly implore all of you to take a moment in the future to voice your disapproval of these ineffective tools and how they are being used in society today. Allowing this line of traffic enforcement to continue will only lead to greater violations of our rights down the road. These traffic cameras would serve better use as the birdhouses that they currently model.