Neal Boortz misses the boat on the issue of red light cameras. He's all for 'em, and doesn't understand the difference between a camera and a cop.

If you're going to oppose the idea of the camera, then consistency would demand that you also oppose the idea of posting a cop at the intersection to look for red light runners. You either run the red light, or you don't. It's pretty much up to you.

The issue with red light cameras has little to do with enhancing traffic safety and everything to do with raking in big bucks for the government. The easiest and most cost effective way to make intersections safer is to lengthen the yellow light. Of course that doesn't do anything to enhance the bottom line of a local government's budget.

When red light cameras first started popping up, they were provided free of charge by the manufacturer. They took a portion of the proceeds and placed the cameras in areas that would maximize profits, and not safety. In some areas officials were caught shortening the yellow light to actually increase the number of cars running the light, and thus the number of tickets issued. Lon Anderson, director of public and government relations for AAA Mid-Atlantic likens it to commissioned sales.

"There must be a reason that corporate America pays its sales staffs on commission," he said. "It drives up numbers. Should we be seeking to drive up the numbers of red-light violators?"

Los Angeles County didn't even bother to wait for the light to turn red, and was caught rigging their cameras to issue tickets while the signals were still yellow.

Late last year, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams even admitted that cameras were about money as well as safety. He even announced that he was expanding the program to help close a $323 Million budget deficit. The Washington Times reports that D.C. just recently shut down another camera that issued $1.5 Million in tickets to 20,000 motorists. The light was a flashing yellow caution that would change to red without any warning signal at all. That type of signal is common for D.C., but it shouldn't have a red light camera attached.

Now, I've said before that I have nothing against capitalism and profit. However, when the police power of the government is used to take your money, that's not a free market, it's stealing. A policeman can use his own common sense in whether or not to issue a ticket. If you run a light to get out of the way of a rescue vehicle, a cop would probably give you a free pass. With a camera, it just snaps your picture and mails you a ticket. For the person caught on film, they have to try their luck in court, where there is little judicial recourse.

Then there is the U.K., where automated traffic enforcement may be taking the next step. Imagine having a policeman right there in the car with you writing tickets as you drive.

DRIVERS were reeling last night at Government plans to put a computerised spy in EVERY car.

The hi-tech gadgets will record each time a motorist DRIFTS over a speed limit, WANDERS into a bus lane or even STOPS on a yellow line.

Even if the U.K. decides not to attach computerized tracking devices to everyone's car, the European Union might mandate it. The insult added to injury will be that the added cost it takes to install the system onto vehicles and roadways will no doubt be passed on to motorists.

Related articles:
L.A. County caught in red light scam-era - 05/16/2003
DC Mayor admits red light cameras are cash cow - 10/17/2002
Red Light Cameras - 08/18/2002