Red Light Cameras Part 2: Sins, Jaywalking, and The Need for Regulation

And when Frank Pasquale isn’t busy helping the lives of children who don’t exist, he spends his free time taking campaign contributions from red light camera companies! No need to double read that last sentence you read that right, “On April 3, 2006, HSBC gave $500 to the political organization of Frank Pasquale, the mayor of Bellwood, which was soon to become RedSpeed’s first customer. The banking giant had never before written Pasquale’s campaign a check and has never done so since, state records show”. Frank Pasquale, the mayor of Bellwood, who talked about how great red light cameras are and how helpful they have been, received a check for$500 from HSBC. Now you might be (and probably are) thinking, “What’s HSBC got to do with it?”. Well HSBC is short for The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, a banking group based in Britain. The connection is as such. The Sales Director of RedSpeed, the largest operating red light camera company in Illinois, Greg Zito has been a longtime lobbyist for HSBC in the Illinois area, meaning that he has both a good relationship with HSBC in terms of himself and RedSpeed. RedSpeed is also the exclusive operator of red light cameras in Britain and probably has business deals with HSBC (one of the largest financial institutions in the world). So what’s good for RedSpeed is good for HSBC, and if Pasquale took a $500 campaign contribution from HSBC he took a $500 campaign contribution from RedSpeed and told everyone how great red light cameras are. Sounds a little odd right? Now, I don’t think that neither Frank Pasquale nor HSBC or RedSpeed are involved in some kind of conspiracy to get the whole world to use its red light cameras. This is merely a clear example of the corruption that can occur with this poorly regulated system of letting municipalities place red light cameras wherever they please. There are multiple examples of corruption when it comes to red light cameras. It is clear that the current system is a wrong one that puts the cities and companies in front of the people who should always come first.

If you think that the red light cameras and $40 fines for taking your case to court is crazy then you should see the stuff that was too crazy to put in the bill! Frank Pasquale and McCampbell in their video about red light camera practices talk about the things they would want to be added to the bill later. 1.They want even higher fines for running red lights (and failing to turn on red) 2.They want to use the cameras to catch speeders as well. These may not seem to strange unless you compare them to what the new bill allows municipalities to do. 1.They no longer have to identify who is driving, all they need to do is see your license plate and then the bill gets sent to you 2.They can use it to check expired license plate stickers so now your not coming to a “full” stop on red just cost you an extra $100-150! 3.They don’t have to use the court system to deal with your fines. Instead the city makes an “administrative junction” (a sub-branch of their legal administration) which will gladly give you lots of wonderful tickets in a very quick and efficient (for them) manner. So if you put it all together you can be seeing fines of up to $500 or more for one trip to the grocery store. Sure the red light companies aren’t robbing you (technically), they’re just enforcing the  law. But where does it end? Perhaps the cameras should be used to catch jaywalkers who fail to “stop” and look both ways before they cross the street. Having a problem billing children? Not a problem. Simply create an “administrative junction” so that way it is not the child’s fault it will be the legal guardians problem for failing to teach them how to cross the street “properly”. Now your little student can bring back both a report card and a fun ticket from the city for “breaking” the law. Who will have some sense and decide that a system which tickets people a hundred dollars for violations that do not improve safety isn’t in the interest of the people, it’s in the interest of the city? Who will step up to the plate and say, “I don’t think it’s in our best interest to tax citizens for traffic violations without evidence that it helps improve safety”?

Well, luckily, some cities are finally seeing the truth and realizing that unfair taxing is wrong and have taken down at least some of their red light cameras or are reviewing their use. For example, Schaumburg’s Mayor, Al Larson, has taken down it’s biggest moneymaker and canceled plans for more of them. Due to, as the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition described, “political preassure”, the mayor ended the controversial plan after receiving many negative comments about the cameras as well as the genius of the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition in organizing protests and waging a campaign against the controversial plan (kudos to them). Des Plaines Mayor, Marty Moyla, has also made the right decision in questioning the legitimacy of red light cameras and has asked the Des Plaines Council to review the placement of it’s cameras. Even Illinois lawmakers are feeling the burn from drivers all over the Illinois suburbs and are considering changing the current law regarding the (questionable) placement of red light cameras in a way which Illinois Representative Jim Durkin described as, “strictly a moneymaking mechanism”. These are hopefully the first of many who will realize red light cameras need to be used to protect, not to swindle, the people of Illinois. If more groups like the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition were to protest in every city then the Mayors of those cities would stop counting their all their delicious red light money and remember that their job is to protect and look after the interest of the public, not the interest of the treasury.

This doesn’t mean that red light cameras are some kind of sin which needs to be purged from this earth. But what both sides need to remember is that red light cameras, when used correctly, can and will help lower accidents, save lives and yes increase revenue for the town in question. What people like Frank Pasquale need to do is make sure that red light cameras are placed in places with high accidents and in areas where red light running is a problem, not in places where large volumes of traffic move through simply to get large amounts of revenue. Review boards for red light cameras, eliminating court “fines” (extortion) for people who believe they did nothing wrong and lower fines for rolling stops at red lights is the right way to give municipalities a source of revenue without injuring the innocent citizen who did nothing wrong. By making sure that red light cameras are properly regulated we can save lives without hurting people and punish the drivers whose ignorance threatens the lives of others. Through regulation, we can change red light cameras from a tool for the city to a tool for the people.

Advertisement