Patrick pushes for cameras to catch red-light violators

The administration’s push has set off a debate that is already unfolding in other states: whether the cameras are there to improve driver safety or whether they represent a new source of revenue for cash-strapped governments. The way Patrick introduced the measure, in a budget bill, has some detractors saying that it is a money grab.

The evidence is mixed. Federal government studies say that strategically placed cameras can improve safety by encouraging obedience to traffic signals, according to the Federal Highway Administration, which gives them a qualified endorsement. And city leaders around the state - including Brockton, Salem, and Boston - are ready to put them up as soon as the Legislature gives them the go-ahead.

On the other hand, a newspaper investigation in Chicago showed that city leaders often place the cameras where they are likely to make money, rather than where they are likely to reduce accidents. And federal government studies say that cameras have actually increased some types of crashes, as drivers are tempted to stop short or speed up to avoid being photographed.

Spokesmen for House and Senate leaders said they are studying the issue, but have not taken a position.

“We already have our ordinance passed here locally and are ready to go if the state law is approved,’’ said Mayor Kim Driscoll of Salem.

Driscoll said it would be “disingenuous if we didn’t say there’s definitely a revenue component here.’’ But, she added that public safety is the primary concern and that she would support pouring any money the town makes back into public safety.

Patrick administration officials make a similar argument, stressing that leaders from cities and towns have been pushing for the legal change that would allow them to fine scofflaws caught on camera up to $100, treating them like parking tickets that are not subject to insurance surcharges. The fine would be assessed on the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver.

To address at least some of the “Big Brother’’ concerns frequently cited by critics, the bill specifies that camera systems should be designed to avoid identifying the driver, passengers, or the contents of the car.

“We’re looking at this as a tool we can give to each city and town to make a determination in their particular area,’’ said Karen Wells, senior counsel for law enforcement for the state Executive Office of Public Safety. “We’re not advocating putting them all up in every single intersection.’’

Boston officials say they have plans to put as many as 20 cameras in place at high-volume and accident-prone intersections. The proposed law mirrors others around the country that require prominent signs around intersections to warn drivers that their cars and license plates are being photographed.

“By putting it in the budget, they’re admitting it’s about money and not about safety,’’ said Ivan Sever, state chapter coordinator of the National Motorists Association, an advocacy group that opposes the cameras. “That’s not right.’’

Sever said the for-profit companies involved in installing the cameras have been pushing cities to use them as revenue generators as part of their business model. And he points out that studies have shown the cameras actually increase rear-end crashes, perhaps because drivers stop suddenly when they notice the warning signs, only to get hit from behind.

But federal studies have shown that the cameras have reduced the number of right-angle collisions in the middle of intersections, which are often more dangerous. The Federal Highway Administration says they should be used as a safety tool, not as a way for communities to make money, and should be done in combination with driver education and improvements to intersections, including evaluating the timing of traffic signals.

“Red-light cameras are not a silver bullet, but they are one important tool, among others, to keep intersections safe,’’ said Doug Hecox, a spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration.

But there are questions about both the money and the effectiveness involved in camera enforcement. Investigations by the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune found that the vast majority of tickets were issued to drivers who failed to stop completely before making a right turn at a red light, a traffic violation that rarely leads to a crash. The Tribune report found that local officials were posting the cameras where they were likely to generate cash, rather than where the most serious crashes were occurring.

And although some cameras have generated $60,000 a month, the city of Dallas had to pull more than a fourth of its cameras because they were not earning enough fines to meet operating costs, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Members of the industry that sells the cameras and their relatives have given thousands of dollars to elected officials at the state level.

Michael Cohen, a spokesman for Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray’s political fund, which has received at least $1,225 in contributions from industry employees since 2005, said the donations have not influenced his support. He has supported the technology for years, dating back to his time as mayor of Worcester.

Senator Steven A. Baddour, the Methuen Democrat who is cochairman of the Legislature’s transportation committee, received a $500 contribution from an account executive at Redflex Traffic Systems last year. He said he supports allowing the cameras but would like to reduce the maximum fine from $100. He said that police chiefs in his district support it and that he had never heard of the Redflex employee.

Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill has received more than $4,000 from an industry official at Affiliated Computer Services and his spouse since 2005. Though Cahill has no direct role in the decision on whether to allow the cameras, spokeswoman Alison Mitchell said “he is absolutely opposed to it.’’

“He feels that it’s a back-door way to raise revenue,’’ Mitchell said.

Globe correspondent Peter DeMarco contributed to this report.