The Legislature passed the ill-fated "van cam" bill in 1998. That bill included a provision for cameras that photograph cars that run red lights. Because of the public outcry over the van cams, the law was repealed in entirety in 2001.

A second attempt at red-light cameras was introduced in 2005. It failed. A third attempt was made in 2007, but that also failed. The fourth attempt, HB 145, was introduced in this session.

The House Transportation Committee heard and passed HB 145 out to the Judiciary Committee, and it seemed to have a future. But the Judiciary Committee never did have a hearing, and it isn't going anywhere.

The companion bill in the Senate, SB 216, was assigned to the Senate Transportation Committee, but that committee likewise decided not to set it for hearing, so things don't look so good for SB 216 either.

At this point, it's safe to say that this third attempt at the red-light camera bill is "make die dead." Was it a bad bill? What was wrong with it? Was it a failure of the economy or the budget? Do three strikes mean you're out?

THE RED-LIGHT PROBLEM

It's not that we don't have a red-light problem. Hawai'i ranks fourth in the nation for pedestrian fatalities. We're doing no better in 2009. Hawai'i has an average of 140 traffic fatalities a year.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 22 percent of traffic accidents in this country are caused by drivers running red lights. These cause 800 fatalities every year. And running red lights seems to be on the rise.

Studies have shown that red-light cameras do work. The Insurance Institute found they reduce violations by 40 percent. Internationally, they reduce violations by 50 percent and crashes by 30 percent.

THE TECHNOLOGY

It's not that this technology is undeveloped.

These systems include sophisticated cameras, triggers and computers. A violation is recorded when a driver enters the intersection after the light turns red. The camera is triggered when a driver enters the intersection above a certain speed and a certain time after the light changes.

Depending on the equipment, photos or videos are taken to record the vehicle before it enters the intersection, and then as it goes through the intersection. The camera also records the license, speed and the time elapsed after the light turned red. A ticket is then mailed to the registered owner.

POINTS OF OPPOSITION

The State Department of Transportation and the Honolulu prosecutor supported the bill, but the public defender opposed it on the basis of driver rights, reflecting that nobody I know likes to get tickets and pay costly fines.

There are other objections, some more persuasive than others. One is that larger vehicles need more time to cross the intersection. Another is that the cameras make traffic more dangerous. Another is that government intentionally shortens the yellow-light cycle to increase revenue from fines. Finally, some say they'd prefer to deal with police officers so they can talk themselves out of the ticket.

In this session, the overarching consideration is that we have a budget crisis and these systems involve serious money, and that is probably the elephant in the room.

GLOBAL TREND

When these cameras were first proposed in 1998, we were ahead of the curve. Now we're behind.

Red-light cameras are operating in some 200 communities and 22 states. There are some 5,000 cameras in use, and this is expected to grow to more than 35,000 in the next five years. Soon enough, these cameras will be everywhere.

Red-light cameras are also overseas in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

Reflex Traffic Systems, an Australian red-light camera vendor, recently entered into a partnership with ChinaTel Group to deploy red-light cameras in Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Shenzhen and Shanghai. The fines will be huge.

Do we know more than they do?

GAMING THE SYSTEM

You know a technology is popular when people try to game it. Just as for anti-radar devices, there are now some clever countermeasures by which people try to beat the system.

The cheapest (less than $30) is a compound you spray on your license plate — it shines in a way as to overexpose the photo and make the plate illegible.

The most expensive ($129) is based on GPS. It matches your location against a database of the cameras and beeps to warn you when you're getting close to one.

All these vendors claim that their products are not in any way intended to help you break the law. You could fool me on that. It's an interesting state of mind when you sell a product for a purpose then say you don't expect people to use it for that purpose. It reminds me of rolling papers.

STATE OF MIND

From the lack of popular support, even from the police, and the apparent community discomfort with computerized traffic-enforcement systems, it looks like the Legislature did what the public wanted — forget about red-light cameras.

The reality is that these days the only economic, efficient way to monitor traffic violations is by computer, like it or not. To put the kibosh on computerized systems is to say that we'd really prefer that the law not be enforced. This may be in the interest of those who occasionally run red lights, but does it serve the interests of public safety?

So in the absence of either police presence or computerized monitoring, what are we doing to make sure people do not run red lights? Perhaps we can get along on giving them tickets when they have accidents. But given our dismal accident and pedestrian statistics, that is probably not enough. After all, we are talking about saving lives.

We haven't heard the end of this bill. It is likely to come up again, and as more pedestrians are injured and killed it is more likely to pass. The good news is that the cost of these systems is likely to go down, and we will be better able to afford it when the bill is finally passed.