Red light cameras are promoted by the municipalities that install them as a road safety measure. It is claimed these red light cameras reduce the number of motorists who intentionally drive through red traffic lights by catching them with a photograph, and then a fine of $300 or $400 is sent to the driver.
According the laws of the road (Ontario Highway Traffic Act), an amber light means the driver is to stop if it is safe to do so. If it is not safe to do so, then the motorist is permitted to continue only with caution. Failure to stop at an amber light if it is safe to do so is a $150 fine (408). A red light means the motorist must come to a stop. Most drivers who run red lights do so because the driver fails to stop at an amber light, not because it is not safe to do so, but because the driver does not want to wait at a red light. Failure to stop at a red light is a $260 fine (412).
In the City Of London, Ontario, there are approximately ten intersections with newly installed red light cameras. The cost of operating each of these cameras is around $50,000 per year. Where does this money come from? Municipal property taxes. Everyone who must pay property tax is forced to pay for the red light cameras indefinitely. The fines are just added to the revenue stream because the red light cameras are already being paid for by people not breaking any law. There is therefore no reason to make sure these red light cameras are doing what they are supposed to do to for the cost it is to operate them.
According to those proponents of the red light camera, it is a safety issue. They say, red light camera prevents drivers from running red lights, and because of this, it prevents collisions of motor vehicles in intersections. They present many inconclusive studies. It is claimed there are hundreds of these kinds of motor vehicle collisions in the city each year, and these preventable collisions sap resources from taxpayer funded city emergency services. Traffic lights already have a safety feature to prevent intersection collisions caused by motorists not stopping at an amber light. There is a delay of a couple of seconds before a red light changes to green. For this time, all traffic at the intersection is stopped at a red light. If red light cameras really was a safety issue, then the red light ticket would mean something.
If a motorist is caught with a red light camera, a ticket is sent not necessarily to the driver of the vehicle, but to the registered owner of the vehicle. There is no establishment of the identity of the driver, as is the case when a police officer pulls over a driver he or she witnessed failing to stop at a red light. The officer checks the identity of the driver with a driver’s licence check. The red light camera checks the identity of the vehicle by photographing the vehicle's licence plate. A red light camera ticket is no more of a problem than a parking ticket. No demerit points are lost. No rise in the driver’s insurance rate. It is nothing but a municipal fine that most people will pay because fighting it in court is not worth it. Failure to stop at a red light is a serious offence, in my opinion, but red light cameras are not there for safety. I say the red light cameras are nothing more than revenue generators for spend thrift municipalities.
(c) Trevor Dailey
Vaughan man beats $325 red light camera ticket in court