Today's USA Today has a story about a legal challenge in Chicago to red light cameras - cameras that take pictures of cars as they allegedly run red lights. The main argument pressed in the article is that car owners get charged with the violation, regardless of who is actually driving. In the process of defending their system, a Chicago official tips the city's hand about the real purpose behind the cameras:
Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, says the city expects to prevail in court because other city ordinances that are similarly enforced have survived court challenges.In other words, "guilt or innocence is irrelevant, we just want the money." Just like the car mags have said from the beginning.
* * *
'As a vehicle owner you have a responsibility to ensure you are not lending your car to someone who will use it illegally,' Hoyle says.
She added that red-light tickets, like parking tickets, are considered by the city to be 'administrative tickets,' not moving violations, and can be paid by mail. 'It's not something that you have to go to traffic court for. It doesn't count against your driving record as a moving violation,' she says.
2 comments:
Money, schmoney...I was nearly killed by someone running a redlight.
Stopping red light runners would be a laudable goal, but in at least some situations, red light cameras hurt more than help. One of the car mags (Car & Driver, I think) showed how red light accidents went up in DC (I think), because the city council realized that they'd get more tickets and more money if they shortened the length of yellow lights. That seems to be the mentality behind the "we don't care if you really ran the light, just give us money" comments.
Post a Comment