A photo enforcement agent posts a sign on 17th Avenue in Denver in 2012. The City Council is considering expanding the city’s use of red-light and photo-radar cameras. (Helen H. Richardson, Denver Post file)
Re: “Are photo-radar and red-light cameras about safety or collecting fines?,” Dec. 21 editorial.
Critics of red-light cameras are opposed to being detected when failing to stop for a red light. They are even opposed to the threat of detection. Common arguments:
The cameras are speed traps. A true speed trap surprises the average law-abider, or worse, fails to make itself clear. Nothing is clearer than a red light or a green light changing to yellow.
The cameras are purely a cash grab. Nonsense! The cameras actually detect dangerous red-light running, and if violators have to pay for their life-threatening irresponsibility, thatap a good thing. The extra revenue is certainly useful, but of greater importance is the encouragement to improve the violator’s driving habits.
The surest way to defeat those greedy law enforcers is to stop running red lights and thereby dry up their unfair bonanza in photo-camera revenue. That is the best revenge.
Robert A. Faust, Highlands Ranch
This letter was published in the Dec. 28 edition.This editorial seems to completely miss the point. If speed limits are necessary for protecting pedestrians versus automobiles, then by all means they should be enforced. If the enforcement is lax, then there is no enforcement, and only random violators will be ticketed. This conveys the message to the general public that the speed limit is a guideline, not a requirement.
Tom Wiseley, Louisville
This letter was published in the Dec. 28 edition.I would point out that most speed enforcement is all about the dollars, whether by photo-radar cameras or up close and personal. Traffic enforcement for the purpose of revenue enhancement is an age-old problem; use of automation in the form of cameras is just stepping up efficiency. Short of micro-management, I can see only one solution that would lessen “predatory” enforcement but still allow for “legitimate” enforcement of traffic regulations.
Statewide, all revenue from traffic fines should be pooled and then redistributed on a per capita basis. This would so dilute the revenue returned to the abusive jurisdictions that it would no longer be profitable to victimize citizens. Public safety would once again become the primary function of law officers and a modicum of respect returned as they became more than badged revenue agents.
Tim Haley, Colorado Springs
This letter was published in the Dec. 28 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
