By now, I've heard almost every argument for why traffic cameras are wise choices for cities and as a tool in the endless struggle to slow down speeding drivers.
I understand convincing positions that safety, not revenue for governments, is their primary value. I understand that statistics show traffic cameras deter speeding. Still, I'm not convinced the cameras are fair.
Consider only that when a car is detected as speeding by camera in Chattanooga, Red Bank and other area municipalities that use the controversial enforcement tool, the titled owner gets a ticket in the mail. Instructions for fine payment make it clear that the infraction will not go on the driver's record, primarily because the camera process does not detect the driver. It merely registers the vehicle's license plate so the fine can be sent to the owner.
The problem is this: Cars can't speed without drivers. Only a person can commit a moving violation.
I know that laws have been changed for this very reason, making speeding-camera tickets nonmoving violations so everything is legal, but the legality still does not make it right. Sure, we need safer roads and fewer speeders. But if governments successfully can bend and alter laws that jeopardize citizen rights in the name of safety, one has to wonder how far they could go in the future -- in the name of safety.
You laugh.
But if someone had told me 15 years ago that speeding tickets would be assigned to cars, not drivers, with no law enforcement witness and with citations issued directly by private companies, not governing entities, I would have laughed, too.
But in the name of safety, that's what we have in this day -- lawbreaking cars detected by cameras. Never mind that, since safety is the primary issue, cities could do many things to reduce speeding -- like raising fines considerably to the point that putting another person in jeopardy by driving fast is very punitive. Then, cameras that require laws to be tweaked beyond fairness and reason would not be needed.
But if that strategy were employed, fewer people would speed and, even with higher fines for violators, cities would generate only a fraction of the money they get from traffic camera revenue. Therein lies the problem. Traffic camera discussions always seem to come back to money.
Safety can be enhanced through many traffic tools that do not violate citizens' rights, but at this point, only traffic cameras have shown that they can generate millions in revenue.
That does not make it right, though.