Everything about red light cameras stinks

Letter writer Mr. Setter on Aug. 16 correctly points out that we should obey all laws. However, not all laws are written for the stated purpose. The "red light cameras" are a perfect example.

Allegedly, this law addresses a safety problem. If that's true, then will fines collected from violators go toward improving intersection safety, such as adding turn lanes or signal arrows, or synchronizing signals? No, they will not. So at best this law is a knee-jerk reaction since it does not address a root-cause analysis of the problem. Most drivers operate their vehicles safely and do not wish to cause accidents. But it frustrates drivers to depart a green signal only to be stopped a block later by another that's just turning red. What we have is a private enforcement business locating itself where it can generate the most revenue: at intersections needing improvements.

Camera violations are issued to cars, not drivers. But since most cars I see are driver-controlled, why isn't the driver fined? Also, the violation does not count against your driving record but any other moving violation does. Is the offense somehow less serious when a police officer observes you via camera?

If you are accused of a crime you have the right to plead your case before a judge. However, under this law you receive an "administrative hearing" run by the same folks who wrote you the ticket in the first place. How impartial could that be?

Our officials have let the proverbial camel nose into the tent. As the recent Daily Herald study and others have shown, cameras do not prevent accidents or promote safe driving. Clearly the unstated purpose of this law is to fill the coffers of private enterprise and overspending governments. We must remove the cameras before we are left with a smelly mess to clean up.

Mark S. Albert

Algonquin