Red light cameras must be justified

I would like to second the letter by Mr. Rosenthal of St. Charles, and add to his argument from my experience with a red light camera.

Recently, I received a $90 ticket by mail. It was several weeks after the alleged violation, and I was not even there at the time. My son was driving, but he's now away from home. The evidence (requiring high speed Web access to view well) is poor quality, but does show clear weather, low traffic, no pedestrians, and illuminated brake lights before a legal right turn on red. I believe the car had stopped, but it was at least extremely slow and endangering no one.

I'm sure that no experienced police officer would have bothered to write this up. But the kangaroo court sent back a form letter stating that I had not invoked one of several "allowable" defenses, and therefore I was liable. Apparently, besides the right to confront your accuser, that old innocent-until-proven-guilty thing is obsolete. Even preponderance of evidence is too much trouble. I am, of course, free to file suit against the city of Chicago in circuit court by traveling there and paying a $96 court filing fee for a future date. Oh sure, I want to spend even more time and money on this!

No one will argue for the freedom to blow through red lights, but we need to know that this problem is significant, as well as that red light cameras are the best way to solve it. I'd hate to think that our governments are reduced to entrapping us in order to raise revenue.

Brian S. Siegel

Wheaton