Sen. Scott Renfroe’s heart is in the right place, but the Greeley Republican’s bill to ban all photo traffic enforcement in Colorado unacceptably tramples on local governance.
Renfroe is surely correct that some communities have misused photo radar and photo red-light systems — for example, by setting up the equivalent of speed traps where the safety benefits are basically nonexistent. Denver has even taken to fining motorists whose front tires go over the crosswalk white line before they stop.
But the proper remedy for such questionable practices is citizen complaints to their elected leaders. Every community that uses photo traffic enforcement is already free to abandon it — as Colorado Springs in fact did last year.
Less drastically, cities can modify how they employ the program.
After the furor over Denver’s ticketing of motorists who encroach into crosswalks, the City Council voted unanimously to lower the fine from $75 to $40. We would have preferred they followed Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman’s recommendation to send a warning notice for the first offense, but that reform can be taken up another day.
“It appears we are turning this into more of a Big Brother revenue generator other than dealing with safety,” Renfroe maintained, adding that he and Rep. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, “are bringing this bill forward because it is clear in the data that there are other ways to increase safety.”
Yes, there are other ways — such as lengthening yellow lights, as Renfroe himself mentioned. But if used properly, such safety measures and photo enforcement can be complementary. It’s up to the cities themselves to decide whether that’s the case.
We’re not suggesting the state has no role in regulating photo traffic enforcement. It clearly does — and has been involved since nearly the onset of the programs. The state not only limits where photo systems can be used, it requires that signs be posted “in a conspicuous place” to notify the public that a photo machine “is in use immediately ahead.”
The state also outlaws paying photo machine vendors based upon the number of citations issued or the revenue generated.
We support those restrictions — and others on the books — and would have no problem with lawmakers deciding to fine-tune them.
But banning photo enforcement altogether is another matter.
It would be one thing if the abuses mentioned earlier and which Renfroe himself objects to were pervasive. If the day ever arrives when the typical use of photo enforcement is to target petty offenses that have no discernible impact on public safety, then we’d welcome a legislative reaction. Fortunately, the evidence does not support an allegation of such systematic abuse.
So long as that’s the case, Renfroe should shelve his bill and let local communities decide what’s in their best interest.
