Thanks to www.stpetetimes.com for the link!

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110704/OPINION04/707049999

Government shouldn't put a stop light in front of voters

By Larry Simoneaux
 

I've been following the skirmish over automated traffic safety cameras (aka: red light cameras; aka: money trees) in Monroe and thought I'd chime in.

As I've previously stated, I don't like them for a variety of reasons. One is that I believe that they are, basically -- no matter how passionate the disclaimers -- revenue enhancers.

Multiply the number of photos taken by the fines levied and you get a pretty good idea of one of the biggest reasons some elected officials want them installed.

As regards their safety benefits, I've found data that support both sides of the issue.

Admittedly, there's an argument that anyone who has paid a hefty fine after having their vehicle (note: not their faces -- a bit of a problem there) photographed is going to be more careful in the future when approaching a controlled intersection.

On the other hand, such drivers might become so careful that, when the traffic light changes to yellow, they stop immediately -- much to the chagrin of the driver(s) behind them who believed that they might have made the light had not the $#!!*% in the car in front of them slammed on the brakes.

I'll leave that one to the experts.

Further, like you, I try to obey the laws. I slow down in school zones. I stop before turning right on red. I begin braking if I see a yellow light and I don't run red lights.

However, should I slip up, I'd much rather have a thinking human being pull me over, explain what I already embarrassingly know, and hand me a warning or a citation rather than have my license plate photographed by some unblinking automaton whose traffic monitoring parameters have been set at who knows what.

But for those who think otherwise and for elected officials whose "only interest" is safety, here's a proposal.

If the decision is taken to install these traffic "Whack-a-Moles" (rid one community of them and they pop up somewhere else), then how about issuing a warning for all first offenses and holding the fine in abeyance for, let's say, six months. Could be three, could be a year. You pick it.

During that abeyance period, should that same vehicle show up on a second photograph, both fines would be imposed immediately. Too, if that second offense caused an accident, then additional and much stiffer penalties would also be imposed due to the driver having proved that he was a butt head.

The idea here would be to give safe drivers a break while also putting them on notice to be more careful in the future.

Just one idea. Others have been offered by readers over the past several weeks.

As regards Monroe, there's another point worth mentioning.

It's obvious that these cameras stir emotions. Traffic safety is important and those who ignore the rules are dangerous. That said, the idea of having Big Brother poke yet another layer deeper into our lives raises many people's blood pressure.

Proof of this can be found in the editorials, letters and initiatives this issue has engendered. That, however, is as it should be. Arguments should ensue. Data should be presented. Points and counterpoints should be made. It's how such matters should be brought to resolution.

The thing to not do is what Monroe's elected officials did when faced with opposition to these cameras -- said opposition being manifested by local citizens gathering sufficient signatures to have the issue placed on the ballot.

That, right there, should've told said officials that many people they represent believe these things should be removed and no more installed. Such being the case, perhaps they should've waited to see which way the vote went and, then, decided what to do.

Didn't happen. Instead, those elected officials met in closed session and then voted unanimously to seek a judge's approval to keep the measure off the ballot.

Nice.

Basically, they told the voters who opposed the cameras and followed the rules in order to try and have their voices heard that "we'll let you know what you need."

Sorry, but as my maternal grandmother, Cora Wells, would've said, that sure sounds a bit "high-handed."

To which observation she would've also added that such never really sits well with "folks" (think voters)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview