Red-light cameras serve a purpose
The arguments to eliminate red-light cameras involves cash, collisions, and corruption. Yes, red-light camera tickets are expensive and many drivers aren't aware they were in violation, but they did commit a moving violation. If the police observed the violation, they'd get a ticket anyway and this way the officer does not have to make a court appearance and all their time is not spent observing violations.
So if the fine is a deterrent and the municipality gets revenue helping to avoid tax increases, I fail to see that argument. Camera timing traps should be corrected.
Collisions is another point used to eliminate them, probably rear-end. The driver being rear-ended probably followed the law and stopped for a traffic signal or made a proper stop before turning right on red. The driver committing the collision is the offender. Collisions are the result of poor driving habits that must be changed -- the red-light cameras should help.
Corruption is another argument used to get rid of red-light cameras. Well, if corruption is a valid excuse for getting rid of something, we should probably start with elected officials who seem to be in the news constantly when they get caught.
Let's not throw the baby out just because the bath water is dirty. Find the guilty and root them out, not only those accepting bribes but those offering them. Is eliminating red-light cameras just an effort to eliminate temptation rather than enacting any ethics reform like our legislature's failure to give any support to the Illinois Ethics Task Force recommendations? Like everything in the state -- no ethics accountability or responsibility allowed.