Red Light Cameras Reek of Corruption
There have been cases where photo enforcement ballot measures have not survived public votes, leading to the discontinuation or suspension of photo enforcement programs in certain jurisdictions. However, it's important to note that the outcome of public votes can vary depending on the specific location, the circumstances surrounding the vote, and the arguments presented by both supporters and opponents of photo enforcement.
So what is motivating city officials to go against the will of the people they represent? Money under the table and corruption? You might have to start asking yourself some common sense questions why there are so many red-light cameras in the US when the citizens overwhelmingly object to them.
Public vote outcomes
Public vote outcomes
- In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them.
- Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras.
- The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio, and College Station,
- Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville
- Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990s, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote in Peoria, Arizona, and Batavia, Illinois.
- In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.
Yes, it is true that red light camera programs have faced public opposition in some jurisdictions. The use of red light cameras has been a topic of debate and controversy in various communities.
Opponents of red light camera programs have raised concerns about several issues, including:
Privacy: Some individuals express concerns about their privacy being violated by the use of red light cameras, as they capture images or videos of vehicles and drivers.
Effectiveness: Critics argue that red light cameras may not effectively improve road safety or reduce accidents. They claim that alternative measures, such as longer yellow light durations or better traffic engineering, can be more effective in addressing traffic violations and improving intersection safety.
Revenue generation: Some people question the motivations behind red light camera programs, suggesting that they are primarily revenue-generating tools for municipalities rather than tools for promoting road safety.
Accuracy and fairness: There have been cases where red light cameras have been accused of generating false or incorrect violations. Some argue that this can lead to unjust fines and penalties being imposed on innocent drivers.
Public sentiment: The presence of red light cameras in communities can generate negative public sentiment, with some viewing them as intrusive or unfair enforcement measures.
Public opposition to red light camera programs has led to some jurisdictions discontinuing or scaling back their use. In some cases, public votes or referendums have been held to determine the fate of red light camera programs, resulting in their removal or suspension.
Public opinion on red light cameras can vary between communities, and there are also proponents who support their use as a means of enhancing traffic safety and deterring red light violations. The decision to implement or discontinue red light camera programs is ultimately a result of local policies, public sentiment, and government considerations in each specific jurisdiction.