TRANSPORTATION: TRAFFIC LIGHT CAMERAS KEEP COUNCIL DIVIDED

With its decision to videotape red light runners at a Cape Girardeau intersection stalled until next year, opinions about the system run the gamut among city council members.

Two councilmen are wholly in favor of the system, two are undecided and three said they likely would vote against asked today.

The Cape Girardeau City Council on Monday decided to delay its decision until after the first of the year, pending the Missouri attorney general's opinion on the legality of the system.

Council members have discussed the traffic cameras since February, but differing opinions about personal freedom and lingering doubts about the system's effectiveness as a deterrent have prevented the group from coming to a consensus.

The videotaping system, known as automated red light technology, is a set of video cameras designed to tape only drivers who are in the process of running red lights. Additionally, the system delays cross traffic while the offense is in progress to prevent collisions.

The system allows police to ticket vehicle owners without being present at the intersection by taping a five-second clip only when it senses that a driver is going too fast or has not slowed in time to stop for a red light.

Police can review the clips to determine if there were extenuating circumstances causing a driver to run a red light, such as an approaching emergency vehicle or rain-slick roads. Vehicle owners accused of traffic violations also can review the clip and protest citations.

The Cape Girardeau Police Department received a $75,000 grant from the Missouri Division of Highway Safety and expects additional money from the Missouri Department of Transportation to help pay for the $100,000 system, should the council approve it.

In the meantime, council members said they will continue to gather information and look to their constituents for opinions about installing the system in Cape Girardeau.

The safety factor

Mayor Albert Spradling was an early proponent of the installing the system, saying he was particularly impressed by the system's ability to delay cross traffic when a red light violation takes place.

"Our ultimate goal is safety," Spradling said. "To me, that is the greatest benefit of the whole system. The goal is to slow down cross traffic and not have a crash. That's why I think this system is more important than what we're focusing on."

Spradling said he hopes that, once the attorney general weighs in on the subject, the council may be able to work through their differences about the matter.

"There are some inherent issues just beyond the legality of it," he said. "Some of them deal with the owner of the car being ticketed. Others deal with right-to-privacy issues. I really don't know whether the attorney general's opinion will sway anybody or not, but it may."

As for public input, Spradling said he has heard comments for and against the system. For instance, he has heard from car dealers who are opposed to the owner being issued a ticket. He also has heard from people who have had near crashes who feel there is a problem in town and would welcome the video system.

Councilman Matt Hopkins had a near crash about two weeks ago while at the intersection of Kingshighway and Cape Rock Road. Had he not delayed momentarily at his green light, he said, he likely would have hit another driver who ran a red light.

"I was a fence sitter until two weeks ago," Hopkins said. "I would say nine times out of 10, if you're going to make a right turn off of Cape Rock Road, you should make sure the traffic is clear after the light has changed to avoid an accident."

Hopkins said he also finds himself reminding people that, while there are only two U.S. cities using the system being pitched to the council by Nestor Traffic Systems, cities all over the country are using automated red light technology sold by other companies.

Personal interaction

Three councilmen said they have a variety of concerns, including ticketing the vehicle owner instead of the driver and issuing a monetary citation instead of adding points to a driver's record.

Councilman Richard Eggimann said he has been ticketed before and believes the points against his driving record and insurance policy were more unpleasant than the monetary fine.

"I feel a fine alone by itself is not that big a deterrent to running stop lights," he said. "I feel like getting points and having your insurance affected, that is really a deterrent to running stop lights again and again."

Although he is not completely against having electronic surveillance at city intersections, he said he would rather the city first try increased police surveillance. Eggimann suggested that the city and police department consider devoting about 12 man-hours a month to stepping up patrols at intersections that are notorious for red light runners.

"How big a deal is that?" Eggimann said. "Then, if we find that's not effective, we can consider doing the electronic."

Councilman Hugh White is particularly dismayed by the thought of citing vehicle owners instead of actual drivers who run red lights.

He also is concerned about out-of-town drivers not paying their fines, as opposed to local residents who can be tracked down more easily.

"There's a fairness issue in my mind there," he said. "At this point, I'm wondering how you can equally enforce the law under those circumstances."

White said he thinks it is a matter of time before automated red light technology becomes more widespread, but he wants to be sure violators can be dealt with equitably and the courts will uphold enforcement.

Both Eggimann and White said they could change their minds in the future to come to an agreement with others on the council.

However, Councilman Frank Stoffregen, an outspoken critic of the system since its introduction to the council, said he would only change his mind if the state of Missouri allows cities to match driver's photographs, taken by the video camera, to state driving records. Currently, this option is not available.

"The only way I would vote yes is if they would have the technology and the state legislation available to issue the ticket to the driver," he said.

"To me, when you issue that ticket to the vehicle instead of the driver, it tells me you're not interested in justice. You just want the money. It's just not right."

The jury is out

Neither Tom Neumeyer nor Jay Purcell, both undecided councilmen, are convinced the system is an unattractive proposition for the city. Neither is convinced it is in the city's best interest, either.

Neumeyer likes the potential decrease in traffic accidents that could come with installation of the system.

He also is not concerned about having a "Big Brother" type of surveillance in the city because he understands that the system will only tape while a violation is in progress.

"The problem I have with it still is that the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket rather than the driver," Neumeyer said. "I think that will need a little more defining."

Although that is Neumeyer's overriding concern, he said he could easily change his mind if that concern could be worked out.

Councilman Jay Purcell has not made up his mind yet but is leaning toward a "no" vote.

"I do have a question how a camera at one intersection can be more effective than two patrol officers that would target different intersections throughout the city," he said.

Purcell said he also believes that points are a more effective deterrent to traffic violations than monetary fines. In addition, he believes nothing beats the person-to-person interaction with a police officer.

"When you get a ticket, that's right then and there," he said. "You know you've done something wrong and you should start changing your driving habits right then and there."