Red light runners want the ‘right’ to jeopardize other motorists in Tucson

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

First of all, isn't Tucson's political gadfly, John Kromko, still on probation for forgery and fraud on petitions in the last campaign he was involved in? Kromko gets probation in forgery case (March 01, 2011). Just asking.

Secondly, where do red light runners get off thinking they have a "right" to run red lights and to jeopardize other motorists on the road?

I don't know how many times I have come to a stop at one of these intersections and the next thing I know cameras are going off like paparazzi on Academy Awards night as multiple cars run the red light, usually making left turns (and yes, the light was red — I looked).

Former state lawmaker John Kromko dropped off nearly 23,000 petition signatures Friday afternoon at the City Clerk's Office to place a measure banning traffic cameras on the November ballot. Petitions
turned in to put Tucson traffic-camera ban on November ballot:

The initiative would prohibit all traffic-enforcement cameras in
Tucson and would amend the city code to require that every ticket
issued by the Tucson Police Department have an actual officer witness
the infraction.

Kromko's group, Tucson Traffic Justice, needs 12,730 valid
signatures from registered voters living within city limits to make
the ballot.

Kromko is confident his measure will succeed among voters who are fed up with what he says are inconsistent curb lines and short-timed yellow lights, all designed to maximize profits.

I agree that short-timed yellow lights to maximize profits has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions, but where is the evidence that this is occurring in Tucson? And isn't the remedy to correct such an abuse, if in fact it is occurring, not a knee-jerk reaction to prohibit red light enforcement?

For the record, i am sympathetic to the argument that there should be an officer who is an eyewitness who issues the ticket. The accused has a constitutional right to confront and to cross-examine the witness, which one cannot do with a camera. The camera operators have refused to disclose data about the cameras to allow the accused to challenge the calibration and accuracy of the cameras on grounds of trade secrets and proprietary information. Courts in Arizona have not been sympathetic to the rights of the accused on these constitutional and evidentiary matters. This initiative is not going to resolve these larger issues. This is a matter for the state legislature.

The city asserts the cameras reduce accidents and make Tucsonans safer drivers.

Since the first camera was installed in January 2007, crashes at the eight intersections with the cameras have decreased from 200 a year to 74 in 2012.

The cameras add about $680,000 a year to the city's coffers.

The reduction in traffic accidents is worth the inconvenience. Don't run the light, and you don't have a problem.