Red Light & Speeding Cameras

Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com

I remember, in the late '90s, having a heated discussion with my father about Red Light Cameras. Speeding cameras hadn't come along yet. Why did such a conversation matter? I was a cop. My dad was a District Court Judge. As a cop you'd think I'd have been all in favor of Red Light cameras because they would help enforce the law. My loss in understanding was how someone could be fined without there ever being ANY proof that they committed the crime. Judge Dad tried to explain to me that the Red Light Camera enforcement was based on an old English law that allowed the Queen to seize vessels caught committing acts of piracy on the high seas. It didn't matter whether or not the vessel's owner was on board. If the ship was used in acts of piracy then the ship and all belongings on it were seized "in the name of the Queen." Apparently the same "law" applies to Red Light Enforcement cameras. If YOUR VEHICLE is observed (photographed) running a red light, then you - the owner - are held responsible civilly. In my very limited point of view this equated to charging someone with a violation and punishing them without due process. Judge Dad explained that wasn't so. You CAN challenge a red light ticket. But the challenge isn't whether or not YOU committed the violation. It's all about whether or not YOUR VEHICLE was photographed committing the violation. Now again, you'd think that as a cop I'd be all in favor of such enforcement tools; and if they accomplished what they were designed for I think I'd believe in them more. But here we are a decade later and people still run red lights on a regular basis; the same ones over and over. People are now being caught on "speed cameras" on a regular basis but people are still speeding. Obviously, as enforcement tools, these cameras and the fining system are not successful. So why are they still not only around but growing in numbers? The answer, I'm sad to say, is dollars. Pure and simple, the governmental organizations that collect the fines from the red light and speeding violations COUNT on drivers NOT obeying the law. Why do I say that? Because those governmental organizations build a budget every year and one of their revenue line items is fines from those cameras. If drivers don't commit those violations then no fine letters get sent; no fines get collected; no revenue comes in for that line item and their budgets get out of balance. In essence, when they put those camera enforcement tools in place they did so to increase their potential revenue. Let's look at this another way: while the camera enforcement tools are supposed to enforce the law and reduce violations, if they did so - if every driver in the country stopped running red lights and stopped speeding - do you think the camera enforcement tools would still be kept up and operational? I don't think so. Someone would have to pay the maintenance cost. It won't be the commercial organization that makes them and sets them up because (in my experience) they get paid a percentage of the fines collected. No fines mean no money made. I don't think the governmental organizations will keep maintaining equipment that produces nothing for them... But if the camera enforcement tools were REALLY there for enforcement and the governmental organizations were REALLY committed to increased public safety through traffic enforcement, then those cameras would stay up even if there were zero violations, right? So, what do you think about those cameras? Like them? Hate them? Think they are unconstitutional? Believe they help increase traffic safety? Think they are simple revenue generating gimmicks? Your thoughts appreciated.