|
|
 |
Saturday
March 20, 2010 Since 1922 |
Red light cameras
From staff reports
Baytown Sun Published August 10, 2009 The Baytown red-light camera debate is in reality several issues that sometimes get wrapped into one.
First, it’s obvious that someone in the city erred in sending out personal information about those ticketed under the program, and the city could have handled the aftermath of that error better.
Second, resident Byron Schirmbeck argued that the red-light cameras were not set properly. While the city maintained it was working within the state guidelines — a point of contention between Schirmbeck and the city — officials decided to reset the yellow-light interval at four seconds at some intersections.
Third, Schirmbeck went before the council to ask them to discontinue the program. In doing so, Schirmbeck did what citizens should do if they disagree with a law or program — try to get it changed.
However, we disagree that the program should be discontinued.
The argument that the city is using the red-light camera program merely as a revenue-producing program just doesn’t make much sense.
In a sense, most fines do produce revenue, whether it be for speeding, illegal parking or littering. The red-light camera program also follows a tradition of penalizing those who take part in risky behavior, and running a red light is not only risky for the driver but for the drivers of other cars, too.
The simple way to stop the program from being a moneymaker is for fewer drivers to stop running red lights.
Another way of looking at the red-light program is that it is a tool of law enforcement, a tool we should not take out of the hands of the police.
Baytown Sun Published August 10, 2009 The Baytown red-light camera debate is in reality several issues that sometimes get wrapped into one.
First, it’s obvious that someone in the city erred in sending out personal information about those ticketed under the program, and the city could have handled the aftermath of that error better.
Second, resident Byron Schirmbeck argued that the red-light cameras were not set properly. While the city maintained it was working within the state guidelines — a point of contention between Schirmbeck and the city — officials decided to reset the yellow-light interval at four seconds at some intersections.
Third, Schirmbeck went before the council to ask them to discontinue the program. In doing so, Schirmbeck did what citizens should do if they disagree with a law or program — try to get it changed.
However, we disagree that the program should be discontinued.
The argument that the city is using the red-light camera program merely as a revenue-producing program just doesn’t make much sense.
In a sense, most fines do produce revenue, whether it be for speeding, illegal parking or littering. The red-light camera program also follows a tradition of penalizing those who take part in risky behavior, and running a red light is not only risky for the driver but for the drivers of other cars, too.
The simple way to stop the program from being a moneymaker is for fewer drivers to stop running red lights.
Another way of looking at the red-light program is that it is a tool of law enforcement, a tool we should not take out of the hands of the police.