Cameras nothing more than cash cows

In the Nov. 16, 2009 letter from Jeffrey Laing, he questions the need for a red-light camera at the westbound lanes of Kirchhoff Road at Plum Grove Road in Rolling Meadows. He does not remember accidents at that location.

From what I've seen, I believe virtually all of the cameras are solely for the revenue generated than any accident prevention. In fact, I have heard they have been responsible for rear-end collisions at some intersections where they are placed.

And, who better than nonresidents to hit with tickets and heavy fines? Those people will never vote in Rolling Meadows, so who cares how how loudly they complain? It is an easy way to gather money from people who can't vote against you.

The information and legal stuff they give you about challenging the camera states that you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. Isn't our constitution based on the presumption of innocence, (putting) the burden of proof on those issuing the complaint?

I would think that alone would cause tickets to be thrown out and any local ordinance to be overruled.

Secondly, if I do something wrong, then I should be the one to face the court. If someone else is driving my car, it is THEM breaking the law and not me. Where is the constitutionality of fining ME for something someone else has done? It is up to those that accuse to prove the guilt and the guilty party. If they cannot do that, then it is their problem to fix their systems.

But, as long as people accept things, they will continue with these devices.

What I've seen as a lack of officers at problematic locations. Well, my town did a sting at one intersection and now I see less traffic problems.

If this camera issue is really about safety, let's get the officers to do periodic stings at those locations. That will do more than red-light cameras and only the truly guilty people will get tickets. Of course, then the city won't get those wonderful $100 fines.

Katherine Hedlund

Buffalo Grove