Thanks to Abolish Red Light Cameras in Longview for the link! 

http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_5de3611c-001d-11e1-aee8-001cc4c03286.html

Just say 'no' to traffic camera measures
Story Discussion Just say 'no' to traffic camera measures
Posted: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:30 am | 1 Comment

Oct. 27 Daily News editorial

With the city of Longview eight months into a trial period permitting automated enforcement of traffic laws using cameras placed at selected stop lights and in selected school zones, city voters are faced with three November ballot measures relating to whether or not the cameras should stay or go when the city's contract expires May 1.

Here's how we see them:

PROPOSITION NO. 1: Advises City Council on retaining "red-light" cameras monitoring obedience to traffic signals at intersections. A "yes" vote favors keeping the cameras.

We're voting "no." While a previous Editorial Board endorsed the idea of trying the cameras, we feel they've been tried and found unsuitable. They were promoted as a safety measure, but more than half the violations detected by the cameras on Ocean Beach Highway have been for drivers not coming to a full and complete stop before executing a legal right turn on red.

The penalty for this "California rolling stop" is the same $124 fine levied against a driver ignoring the red light and blowing through the signal at full speed, which hardly seems appropriate and doesn't reflect procedures or priorities used by city police when enforcing traffic laws in the past.

It also strengthens arguments by camera opponents that the cameras are little more than revenue generators and make little impact in terms of safety.

Proponents argue that a violation is a violation is a violation, but that's not how it's been done to this point and we're not in favor of having a trip through town via Ocean Beach becoming some sort of automated driving exam with a $124 penalty for failure. Having seen these cameras in action, we're ready to turn them off.

PROPOSITION NO. 2: Advises City Council on retaining cameras monitoring the speed of drivers passing through school zones. A "yes" vote favors keeping the cameras.

This seems more related to safety, but the problem we see is camera math. With the more active and profitable red-light cameras disconnected, it's hard to guess how many cameras might be needed in school zones and how narrow tolerances would need to be in order for the cameras to cover their considerable overhead and make any money.

While we're 100 percent in favor of safer conditions around our schools, a "school zone only" model doesn't seem to work financially. Therefore, we're opposed.

MEASURE NO. 1: Mandates that an advisory vote be taken in the next general election should the city pass any new ordinances enabling the use of traffic cameras.

This is a fairly obvious deterrent to any future deployment of cameras since the cost of such an advisory vote (as estimated by city officials) is somewhere between $7,000 and $30,000. While we anticipate that most camera opponents will vote "yes" here, we're not sure we like the mechanism and we're concerned that use of these "trip-wire" initiatives might expand in the future.

We're not positive this is needed and endorse a "no" vote.

We'll also be happy to see this debate end as the camera opponents, in particular, have been way over the top in terms of overheated rhetoric. On just one page of this year's official Voters' Guide, the words "despicable," "arrogant," "plotting," "betrayal" and "unethical" are applied to city administrators and their motives. There is yet another tiresome, pejorative reference to City Council's legal executive sessions as "secret meetings."

We'll be happy when we can view this kind of campaigning — like the cameras themselves — in our rear-view mirrors.

Copyright 2011 The Daily

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