Don't castigate public on fair debate

I am responding to the March 22 Fence Post letter in which a group of suburban law enforcement officials characterize critics of the use of red-light cameras for right-turn enforcement as "selfish, reckless drivers."

These individuals are either misguided about the spirit of the criticism or are intentionally trying to distort a valid topic of debate (perhaps since they are potential beneficiaries of the additional revenue involved). Critics such as myself aren't questioning whether existing laws should be enforced. Rather we are questioning whether the use of red light cameras for right turns will result in a material improvement to safety or whether the net result will merely be a transfer of wealth from private citizens to local municipalities with only a negligible impact on safety.

This is a valid question given that cameras are sprouting up at intersections with little history of safety issues per the Daily Herald investigation. There is an opportunity cost of routing private funds into government coffers rather than into the economy or other more productive uses. If speeding tickets for driving 1-5 miles per hour over the limit were suddenly raised to $1,000, there would be a similar public outcry. People will naturally question a penalty that is not in proportion to the expected societal benefit that a law is intended to provide.

So, instead of castigating the public you are hired to serve and protect, please respect the right of your stakeholders to engage in a reasoned debate. Red light cameras have legitimate uses, but enforcement for right turns is eminently debatable. As others have suggested, if you truly want to stick to a vague "safety" rationale, then donate the funds to charity rather than making it appear that municipal revenue generation is the primary driver for their usage.

Rick Avgerinos

Itasca