In the March 17, 2011 issue of the Leader, Arnold Police Chief Bob Shockey contends that his department lacks the manpower to police the three intersections in town that have the red light cameras. He is quoted as saying, “We have six or seven officers on a shift, if no one’s on vacation.” The implication is that his officers have better places to expend their time and effort.
Yet on March 23rd, I witnessed five Arnold Police cars simultaneously patrolling I-55 North beyond the exit to Highway 141. Three of the vehicles were parked in a pack off the right shoulder and two others had a motorist stopped just south of Meramec Bottom Road. Obviously the intent is to enforce speed limits and traffic laws, which is understandable. But isn’t this the exact waste of manpower that Chief Shockey contends his department can’t afford. By his own admission, that would leave one or two officers on duty inside city limits - if no one is currently on vacation and if none of the patrol cars on the interstate carried multiple officers.
If the staff under Chief Shockey is too busy to police intersections within city limits that he himself deems dangerous, but can still put nearly all of its manpower out to patrol the interstate, then that tells me they need to re-evaluate their priorities.

When you see a group of Arnold Police Department officers on the Interstate like that, they are generally on overtime enforcing the speed limit there and it is considered secondary duty. That overtime is paid for by Federal or State Grants as Dave mentioned. The regular shift of officers are still on primary duty patrolling the city. This explanation is easily verified if you want to call and speak with Chief Shockey or a shift supervisor. The APD phone number is 296-2222.

So we are short the funding to properly patrol dangerous areas within the city because our state and Federal tax dollars (when granted back to us) dictate that the interstate is a higher priority.

That's sure a stretch wouldn't you think?

What I think is that the red light camera system is a tool designed less in the interest of public safety and more useful as a driver of the profits of ATS and additional city revenues. What I know is that a police officer in a vehicle at these dangerous intersections is a far greater deterrent to running the red lights. Yet we lack the funds to pursue the better solution.

Brian that is a very respectable position. At least it is an opinion of what you feel rather than claiming the use of the cameras is unconstitutional and deprives people of rights as Mr Hay and his followers claim.

Let me ask you a question Mr Moritz. Do you even care one bit what your constituents want, or are you more interested in the revenue generated? Would you be in favor of a gps chip being installed in everyones car and when the speed limit is exceeded a ticket is sent to the owner of the car? After all, speeding is a safety issue. How come red-light violations in Arnold have gone from just over 5,000 in 2006 to over 9,400 in 2010? ATS rep at the town hall meeting said as awareness of red-light cameras increase, violations will decrease. Why are they not decreasing. Hire a police officer and let him patrol the most dangerous intersections during the busiest times of the day and he will more than pay for himself with revenue he generates from catching red-light runners. and you will see real reduction in accidents and not a false sense of safety.

The facts are clear, technology works. Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law. Cameras are the way of the future, they save money and they provide irrefutable evidence of violations. Just like the cameras in a bank or a convience store. NO COST TO THE TAX PAYER, AND THEY WORK! DUH!

@ Mr. Banks: Stating that the red light cameras "work" depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to issue civil violations for a traffic offense in order to increase the profits of ATS and revenues of the city, then you are correct. If the goal is to increase public safety, then the technology should be instrumental in decreasing the number of red light violations within their intersections. Yet the city's own statistics show that more violations were ticketed in 2010 than any other year that the cameras have been in use and there has never been a yearly decline in total violations. Therefore, from a public safety perspective, the technology is failing. The cameras are not changing driver behavior. It takes a police presence to do that.

I believe that in a controlled environment where the same number of vehicles pass through an intersection every year and in the same manner with no other changes, I would suggest that you may be onto something. I would suggest, though, that on the surface of it there may be another explanation, or more than one. Would you agree with me that there are likely more cars passing through the noted intersections in 2011 than in 2006, the first full year of operation? I have no idea what that number may be but suggest you cannot draw a conclusion from just one set of data points without know the rest.

If the number of violations rises in correlation to the amount of cars using the intersection, then the technology is still having zero effect on public safety. It is not deterring anything, just maintaining the status quo. The most desired result in this case is a reduction in vehicles running the red lights until that number approaches or acheives zero. The cameras are not demonstrating the capacity to reach this goal.