Rubio’s right: Red- light cameras are a scam

Cities want money more than safety

Marco Rubio’s driving habits have been in the spotlight ever since The New York Times put his minor traffic infractions on the front page. The Florida senator replied by noting that red- light cameras are a “scam.” PolitiFact chided the Republican presidential candidate for failing to acknowledge that cameras are perfectly legal in his state — as if that matters.

Last Friday, the former chief executive of a red- light camera firm pleaded guilty in a political corruption scam that had politicians embrace photo enforcement in return for cash. For nearly a decade Karen L. Finley was a leader at Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian company that operates cameras in about 200 communities throughout the United States and Canada.

By her own admission, Finley doled out company funds to government officials in Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio, on the understanding that they’d back the automated ticketing machines serviced by her firm. To prevent the public from recognizing the connection, the money was laundered through third parties, according to federal investigators.

It wasn’t an isolated incident. Finley has already notified a federal judge in Chicago that she will plead guilty to lavishing $ 2 million on the Windy City official who handed Redflex contracts worth $ 124 million. Finley’s top lieutenant says bribes were distributed across a dozen states from California to Florida.

Such facts aren’t likely to shake the faith of automated justice’s most stubborn defenders. They cling to the notion that cameras can improve safety, regardless of the corrupt motivation of their operators. They’ll even point to studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ( IIHS) and government bodies claiming the devices work exactly as intended.

But all that safety talk doesn’t hold up. The most comprehensive research comes from Europe, where the technology remains popular among politicians. The British government used to credit photo radar with reducing serious injury accidents by 30%, and it had the statistics to back up the claim. The government only dropped its boast after The British Medical Journal, published research finding no reduction in the number of patients admitted to hospitals in road accidents while this miraculous 30% drop was taking place.

In the U. S., now that he has left the IIHS, the author of many of its safety studies on automated traffic enforcement has been fingered by Baltimore, Md., investigators for providing an “independent” audit of the city’s cameras even as he maintained close financial ties to the industry he was supposed to be auditing.

The statistics that bolster the use of photo ticketing are rigged. The “independent” experts who support the technology and the political bodies that approve their use are ethically challenged.

Marco Rubio is right. Traffic cameras are a scam.