The red-light camera battle in Missouri continues to rage. Unfortunately, it has grown too ugly to be enjoyable anymore. As the state Legislature considers a bill that would ban the cameras, a seemingly innocent ad campaign has been rolled out across the state by something called the National Coalition for Safer Roads.
The ads (see one after the jump) show victims of crashes involving red-light runners, and feature parents and a police officer all throwing their support behind the cameras. Some testimonials are downright tear-jerkers: For example, a grandmother talks about her grandchild being ejected from a vehicle during a crash. And some reflect parental paranoia, as in the dad who says, "We can't always be with our kids."
The ads lay out the pro-red-light argument effectively, citing statistics showing that cameras can reduce highly dangerous T-bone accidents and can save lives, and
they might change drivers' bad habits. But the ads in the polished campaign, complete with scary
footage of crashes, don't mention who is behind them and, presumably, who paid for them.
It's American Traffic Solutions, the company with contracts in
several Missouri communities to operate red-light camera systems,
including in Kansas City. Think the proposed camera ban would be bad for
business?
According to the NCSR website, it's "supported by American Traffic
Solutions." It lists no other sponsors or financial backing. Don't
expect to glean that information from the ads, though. The spots only include
this disclosure: "Paid for by the National Coalition for Safer Roads"
underneath six logos of safety organizations, but not ATS.
The supposedly national organization claims on its website that it has the
backing of a fistful of
police organizations and sheriffs but explains that it's registered in
Texas and only
approved to operate in Missouri and Washington, D.C., where ATS has
lucrative contracts.
Lurking behind the scenes while trying to sway the public to
promote a political stance that will increase its business is
undeniably sleazy. But it's nothing new for ATS. The company also
anonymously created the website Wrongonred.org to discredit and draw
traffic from Missouri anti-camera advocate Matt Hay's website
Wrongonred.com. ATS even called out Hay "and his band of merrymen who
believe lawbreakers are the victims" on its Facebook page before
deleting the post. Wrong on Red has never argued that lawbreakers are
victims or that people who have been hit by red-light runners are not
victims.
A Washington state advocacy site Bancams.com has reported finding more
than a dozen nearly identical sites supposedly used to promote safe
roads that ATS created without identifying the company as the site
owners. Among those sites that are no longer active are
KeepMissouriSafe.com, KeepStLouisSafe.com and KeepKansasCitySafe.com.
Nobody would fault ATS
for openly running ads touting improved safety statistics and telling
crash victims' stories in an effort to promote the use of red-light
cameras. Similarly, nobody should ridicule Wrong on Red and other
activists for highlighting statistics that cast doubt on cameras'
effectiveness and for questioning the financial motives behind cities
that authorize the cameras.
But ATS' tactics sour the debate for everyone. By
hiding behind misleading websites and masquerading as the NCSR, ATS
shades the entire pro-camera movement as untrustworthy, and the company
lowers the level of debate.
Red-light cameras are a rare political issue that touches public
safety, civil liberties and municipal revenue in communities statewide,
and the debate over their use should continue.
But it deserves better than the deceptive strategies ATS continues to deploy.
Showing 1-8 of 8
I don't yet know which side of the argument I favor, I'm still doing my own research. Really all I want to make clear is my appreciation of The Pitch! I saw this commercial and decided to do the hokey-pokey and see who was behind the scene and paying for this slick ad campaign. The Pitch was one of the first articles I found. The Pitch, a local resource I know and trust.
Thanks Ben Palosaari and The Pitch, good information, well written, nothing but love for ya ...
Apparently it is of no consequence to you that the cameras strip us of our sixth amendment right to face our accuser in a court proceeding.
Just as a matter of putting things in their proper order; the camera cannot take a picture until the red light has already been run. How is taking a picture after the fact going to stop accidents when the possibility of getting a ticket for running the light clearly doesn't? The cameras will generate megarevenue for the municipalities which use them but won't stop accidents.
I dont like these Red Light Camera's, and I also don't like the people that run the red lights! I would advise ANYONE to do what I do if your front of the line waiting for your light to change, your light is clearly green and someone is running it, I will blast my horn at them and give them the L sign for the losers they are! And If I get a chance to yell at them I will yell "What, you trying to kill someone?" However, I also dont like the Red Light Camera's since the majority of the tickets are going to those that are making a "free right hand turn" Dori Monson, a talk show host for KIRO 97.3 FM in Seattle,WA (or mynorthwest,com) has said there is evidence that 80% of the tickets handed out by the camera's are to people making right handed turns. I would be for the cameras if they didnt shorten the yellow light and it was for people going through the light, and not those making a right hand turn!
Well if all you have to do is keep a lawyer on call for traffic offences and you get out with just a slap on the hand what's the point of the camera. We need to get the courts to do there job and fine and charge points to the offenders. If you have ever attended a trafic court you have watched offender after offender plead out of a a ticket only to get off with no points and very littel cash out of pocket. Tell your representives to toughen up on violaters and you won' need to spend our tax dollars on cameras.
As you read the pro-camera comments here, keep in mind that there's Astroturf Lobbying by the camera Industry. For them, it wasn't enough to have fake research outfits like the IIHS churning out paid-for "studies" favoring the cameras, so they hired some PR firms to try to manufacture a fake grassroots movement via comments their employees post on news articles like this one. (Google Rynski and Astroturf.) The politicians read the web, assume the pro-cam comments represent genuine public support, so they vote to install cameras. Politicians are easily fooled: They want to be, so that they can, with a clear conscience, take the Industry's campaign donations. But don't you be fooled.
Your cynicism is chilling. Should it surprise anyone that the company who manufactures red light cameras is working to increase sales of its devices? No. Is it relevant that they are funding the ads running right now? What is relevant to me is that there is data proving that red light cameras in intersections change behaviors - data put forth by the reputable IIHS and also police officers. If red light cameras can help save lives and their presence slows people down and prevents them from running a red light camera, who cares that the manufacturer of the cameras are trying to push them out there? I'm a mom of two young kids, I am all for red light cameras. Safety always comes first. And those ads you referenced, ought to stop all of us at the next yellow light, after seeing them. They are chilling and real.
Here is a great blog which further exposes the ATS employees behind American Traffic Solutions, opps, I meant the National Coalition for Safer Roads: http://againstallclods.wordpre...
like
dislike
