We think state Rep. Paul Tucker knows what he is talking about when he says installing red-light cameras at intersections reduces crashes and saves lives.
As Salem’s former police chief, Tucker oversaw a police department whose members responded to automobile accidents, including fatal ones, caused by drivers running red lights.
As a state legislator, Tucker said during a legislative hearing last week that red-light cameras are “not about revenue,” they are about enforcement. Tucker and cosponsors of legislation he has filed want Massachusetts to join two dozen other states, including Rhode Island, in getting red-light cameras installed on the commonwealth’s roadways.
If Tucker’s legislation is approved by the Massachusetts House and Senate and signed by Gov. Baker — a red-light-camera supporter — it gives local governing boards authority to hold hearings and vote on installing the cameras at local intersections.
Tucker’s bill establishes a ratio of one camera per 2,500 residents.
Lynn could have up to 40 cameras on local streets, or fewer depending on siting decisions by local lawmakers. Lynnfield could have up to five cameras, and Marblehead could have eight — or none — depending on action taken by town officials. Nahant, with 3,500 residents, would have a single camera, if officials opted to approve it. Peabody, with 54,000 residents, would have 21 cameras; Revere, 24; Saugus, 13; and Swampscott, six.
According to the American Automobile Association’s website, drivers running red lights kill two people every day in the United States, including drivers, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
States that have approved red-light cameras have hired private contractors to operate the cameras. Under Tucker’s bill, police departments in communities where red-light cameras are approved would review photos of red-light scofflaws and issue citations, with fines set at $25 for first-time offenders to up to $125 for multiple offenses.
Under Tucker’s bill, fines would not result in automobile insurance surcharges or become part of a driver’s Registry of Motor Vehicles record.
Red-light cameras have their critics, including state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, who told the State House News Service last February that the cameras represent “an increase in government surveillance.”
Nonsense. Don’t run the light and Big Brother won’t know you exist.
Tucker last week referenced criticisms of his bill by opponents who view the cameras as a traffic-enforcement revenue-enhancement measure.
Those objections and arguments made by red-light camera proponents will have to play out in the Legislature. In our view, the cameras are a way to save lives by discouraging a potentially deadly traffic violation almost every driver has committed.