The point of laws and law enforcement is to keep communities safer, right?
If a certain tactic that's meant to protect citizens proved to do
just the opposite, it would then make sense to put an end to that tactic, right?
That is the logic that New Jersey state Sen. Michael Doherty is posing
regarding the use of red light cameras at intersections throughout New
Jersey. The cameras are supposedly tools for law enforcement to enforcetraffic laws and catch those who run red lights. But there is an unwanted outcome of
The red light cameras have been in operation as part of a pilot program
in New Jersey that is supposed to run a course of five years. But Sen.
Doherty and other critics of the cameras argue that "cut" should
be called on the cameras immediately. Why? Accident reports show that
the rate of crashes has not significantly decreased at intersections with
the red light cameras. The accidents that do occur now tend to be more
serious and, therefore, expensive to the state.
If New Jersey's residents aren't safer and if New Jersey is spending
more money after implementing the cameras, then why keep them in place?
With such arguments growing in the state, lawmakers who continue to support
the program have some explaining to do.
Doherty says, "If the Legislature does not move to immediately terminate
the pilot program in light of the new data confirming that cameras make
intersections more dangerous, that will be proof positive that the real
purpose of red light cameras is to give government another way to reach
into your pocket through tickets and fines."
Laws and law enforcement tools should improve a community. Do you believe
that red light cameras do that?
Source: NJToday, "Senator Calls For Immediate Termination Of NJ's Red Light Camera Program," Nov. 27, 2012