Install red-light cameras
Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics Local 1 wishes to express its support for installing red-light cameras in the City of Pittsburgh.
The damage and devastation caused by automobile collisions is an ever-present risk. Too often, the cause is associated with driving through red lights. The real tragedy is that many of these crashes are preventable.
There is substantial evidence from studies in other cities that proves reduction in the number of crashes. In Philadelphia, which has a camera program similar to the one Pittsburgh is considering, the rate of right-angle crashes has decreased by a third in intersections with cameras, and overall collisions decreased by 24 percent. According to a state report, red-light violations dropped by 48 percent after one year of having the cameras in Philadelphia.
Additionally, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study showed traffic cameras in 14 large cities saved 159 lives and cut the rate of fatalities associated with running red lights by 24 percent over five years.
By law, any and all revenue from the cameras will go toward projects and investments to make our roadways, bike paths and pedestrian walkways safer; 100 percent of that revenue comes from people who break the law by running red lights. It's a win-win for the city.
Just as seatbelts and airbags keep motorists safe and texting bans help drivers stay alert, this initiative could save lives at dangerous intersections.
The writer is president of Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics Local 1.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Quarantine quandary
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- ‘Change’ promise kept
- Climate, guilt & the left
- Double standard? II
- Thanks, Vikings!
- Ford City police