Thursday, December 17, 2009

Distribute Camera Enforcement Revenue to Residents

That's a good idea if there ever was one. I still don't like the idea of having the cameras, but at least one can say that the primary purpose would be to improve safety rather than fill the local coffers. When revenue goes to the municipalities, it creates a perverse incentive to increase fines, increase "guilt," lower speed limits, cut yellow times and otherwise game the system.

For example, in Bluff City/Piney Flats, the new speed cameras are strategically placed in an area that is in a natural trough. In other words, the cameras are at the bottom of a hill, regardless of which direction you are travelling. They are also in an area that has an artifically low speed limit to begin with. There is very little congestion in the area where the cameras are placed, particularly compared with 1/4 mile further on the road where the shopping center is located. On top of that, if you dare challenge the ticket and lose, it transforms from a non-moving violation to a moving violation. That is the part of the ordinance that is most open to challenge under Tennessee law, in my opinion.

If it were truly about safety, the money would not fill the coffers of politicians to spend however they like.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home