Introduction
Police cameras on traffic lights are being adopted as tools for traffic surveillance by police officers in Sacramento. The issue is that the use of these cameras is not effective in ending crime. In itself, it cannot accomplish the mission of the police. Police departments argue that it is the best way of monitoring traffic activities in Sacramento all day and night. They view it as a tool for transparency and document observations, reports, statements, and behaviors. They also believe the use of cameras has led to a reduction in accidents and fatalities. The public, however, opposes this move and considers physical patrols more effective in the fight against traffic violations. The public feel that camera installation costs are expensive, yet they are just observation tools and do not solve the real problem. The public believes that traffic cameras are just ways for the Sacramento Police Department to obtain more revenue. Surveillance costs and benefits do not measure up to its purpose of eradicating accidents; instead, it has unrealistic expectations, is very expensive to put in place, and is profit-oriented.
Camera Unrealistic Expectations
The expectation that traffic light cameras can capture all traffic malpractice is not realistic and attainable. This is because of wrong placement, poor maintenance of the cameras limiting their effectiveness, and stormy weather on their functionality (Krantz and Vukota). These factors show that the cameras on traffic lights do not cure traffic-related problems. For example, there are instances in Sacramento where the traffic cameras have captured unclear images of people on the wrong side of traffic rules during bad weather, such as rainy days. Because of the difficulty in identifying the people involved, they do not face charges of going against traffic rules.
It is also not possible to install the cameras on all sections of the road. In Sacramento, traffic light cameras are installed only on intersecting areas of the road (Goldenbeld et al. 142). This means that for the parts not monitored, drivers freely go against traffic rules. Therefore, these sections of the road are vulnerable to accidents if other tools of control are not implemented (Kovanič 349). There are also cases when cameras are damaged or broken in several parts of the city. Such cases prove that recklessness on roads is not captured for a particular period when there are such breakdowns. The above examples show that camera surveillance can act as a complementary tool and not supplement the others. It is only valid when they work as an extra tool to other methods such as intelligence policing.
Expensive Installation and Maintenance
The cost of setting up a surveillance system is too expensive. There should be a cost analysis of using it compared to other sources. The cost of buying and installing the cameras is too high. In addition, the Sacramento Police Department needs to be well equipped with monitoring equipment. More staff to monitor the surveillance have to be hired (Goldenbeld et al. 130). It may lead to revenue loss, considering that more salaries and maintenance fees are incurred (Kovanič 28). Sacramento Police Department has been charging training fees, which are aimed at making the staff effective for specific tasks. This cumulatively increases the total cost of having the cameras on traffic lights. The process is costly, yet there is no definite evidence that the cameras are to guarantee safety. The vendors are subject to bias to sell equipment believed to have camera systems implementing speed (Vishnu et al. 136). However, this is done without adequate research that supports the allegation. In Sacramento, drivers have been driving at a high speed, and on noticing a camera, they abruptly change their haste, which has caused accidents.
Profit Oriented Purpose
The camera installation focus is more on revenue than problem-solving. In Sacramento, the fine on any traffic violation is approximately five hundred dollars (Goldenbeld et al. 145). The traffic surveillance cameras are machines and cannot, therefore, the Sacramento Police Department should not rely on them to make a human judgment. They cannot mark the difference between a severe violation and an insignificant one. It shows that the authorities receive some revenue for offenses not committed.
An innocent person may be disadvantaged and will have to defend themselves against a circumstance they have no clear remembrance of (Goldenbeld et al. 145). The cameras are subject to errors, which might hinder capturing essential information (Vishnu et al., 139). One may be forced to pay a higher amount than required. Such happens because the officers’ focus is not entirely on safety but also on a traffic offense. It shows a misplaced priority by the people who are meant to work for the public’s good. It explains why there is rampant opposition by the general public to the installation of the cameras. Also, the way minor violations are treated like significant violations shows that the target is on the value to get paid.
There would be more traffic signs to solve the problem without necessarily using means that force people to purchase tickets. The signs should be well indicated and visible enough for the drivers to know the requirements that they should observe. It would help reduce the number of accidents that occur due to the ignorance of drivers who fail to follow the rules and regulations (Kovanič 359). Traffic, if made to be transparent enough, people are likely to understand and adhere to.
There are cases where drivers follow traffic rules because of the awareness that cameras are in place, and they will be recorded for breaking the rules (Vishnu et al. 141). But in other instances, they pay no attention because they know that no cameras are on sight. It proves that such drivers only adhere to avoid the consequence of being caught on the wrong side of the law. But when no one is on the lookout, they are likely not to follow it. It shows there is a need for alternative action. Sacramento police officers should make the drivers understand that there is a great need to be on the law’s right side for personal safety and pedestrians. Even with all the reasons against these traffic cameras, there are cases across different cities that indicate the positive impact of using them. Upon installation, they marked a decrease in deaths due to road accidents (Krantz and Vukota). It is due to vigilance by both pedestrians and drivers at points where cameras are installed. People become aware of such spots and are sober enough while they are there.
Sacramento drivers become more careful because they know they are at risk of being captured by traffic cameras. But given a choice, they would still be reckless along the roads. Cameras have not solved the problem, therefore, but have created fear. If not in place, people are likely to violate the rules. Sacramento residents who have once paid a ticket due to the violation are unlikely to repeat doing the same because they are always on the lookout (Vishnu et al. 141). Such cases help reduce the number of offenses that people commit on the roads. But for those who have not been in the situation will not be as vigilant as the others. Practical tools that control speed should also be put in place, such as devices that control speed, roundabouts, and physical objects such as speed bumps.
As much as people take advantage of traffic cameras not being installed and end up being reckless because of the freedom that comes with them, it is crucial to develop ways to solve the problem and minimize the same. Traffic officials can consider coming up with a more sustainable way of ensuring traffic safety. A method that the general public accepts and can adhere to without supervision (Krantz and Vukota). Therefore, the police aim should be on camera sites and casualty reduction even in places with no camera installations.
Conclusion
Cameras on traffic lights, irrespective of their expensive installation cost, have not solved the problem of traffic accidents in Sacramento. Alternative ways have to be adopted by the Sacramento Police Department that achieve its mission. The expectations put on cameras are unrealistic because they fail to function or capture clearly. Its function and purpose have been not to reduce accidents but also to get money from the people. The Sacramento Police Department should embrace corrective actions. A collaboration with people would ensure that they do not receive opposition as they go about their work. This will lead to safer roads, and the people will follow the provided guidelines if this is done regardless of surveillance or not.
Works Cited
Goldenbeld, Charles, Stijn Daniels, and Govert Schermers. “Red Light Cameras Revisited. Recent Evidence on Red Light Camera Safety Effects.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 128, 2019, pp. 139-147.
Kovanič, Martin. “Individual Experiences of Surveillance: Attitudes Towards Camera Surveillance in Slovakia.” Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, vol 56, no.3, 2020, pp 343-361.
Krantz, Christoffer, and Gabriela Vukota. “Pushing Traffic into the Digital Age: A Communication Technology Comparison and Security Assessment.” Halmstad University. 2020.
Vishnu, VC Maha, M. Rajalakshmi, and R. Nedunchezhian. “Intelligent traffic video surveillance and accident detection system with dynamic traffic signal control.” Cluster Computing, vol 21.1, 2018, pp 135-147.