North County Times
Red-light cameras have made headlines a lot lately.
First came the news that people in Los Angeles County were thumbing their noses and not paying red-light camera fines, and suffering no consequences. And the Los Angeles City Council's recent decision to remove "photo enforcement" cameras from the nation's second-largest city caught attention as well.
Closer to home, red-light cameras are alive and well. And area drivers face real consequences, such as not being able to renew driver's licenses and vehicle registration.
The devices continue to snap unflattering photos of drivers in several cities around San Diego and Riverside counties. Those cities still deliver photos through the mail, accompanied by orders to pay fines that run around $500.
And there is talk of expanding. Murrieta is looking to put up three more cameras, besides the four it has now.
At the same time, Murrieta resident Diana Serafin is trying to put a stop to the camera-cop program in her city.
Serafin is working to place a local initiative on the November 2012 ballot that, if approved, would bar the devices. She needs the signatures of 4,500 registered voters by Sept. 20.
"It started out when a couple of girlfriends got tickets" last winter, she said.
Serafin said her friends prepared elaborate defenses. "The judge was impressed," Serafin said. "But he said in the end ... 'We've got the video, you're guilty.'"
Serafin said she is trying to get rid of the cameras because the fines are outrageous, and the people who pay them have virtually no chance of prevailing in court.
"You should be able to face your accuser," she added. "And that's not the officer (who testifies in court) because the officer didn't see it."
Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, who represents a portion of Southwest Riverside County, tried earlier this year to enact a statewide moratorium on red-light cameras and ran into a roadblock in a legislative committee.
By now you've heard all the arguments for and against the technology. Camera advocates say the devices deter impatient motorists from running red lights and save lives. Opponents say they violate drivers' rights because a machine, rather than a police officer, records violations.
Whatever side you're on, it seems to me we ought at least to have some consistency.
If we really want machines patrolling our streets, then let's put cameras at every intersection in every city
But if we'd prefer to have real human beings patrol our streets, then let's take them all out.
Let's have a debate about who or what should be given the important responsibility of keeping our roads safe, instead of squeezing in a camera here or there on a piecemeal basis.
First came the news that people in Los Angeles County were thumbing their noses and not paying red-light camera fines, and suffering no consequences. And the Los Angeles City Council's recent decision to remove "photo enforcement" cameras from the nation's second-largest city caught attention as well.
Closer to home, red-light cameras are alive and well. And area drivers face real consequences, such as not being able to renew driver's licenses and vehicle registration.
The devices continue to snap unflattering photos of drivers in several cities around San Diego and Riverside counties. Those cities still deliver photos through the mail, accompanied by orders to pay fines that run around $500.
And there is talk of expanding. Murrieta is looking to put up three more cameras, besides the four it has now.
At the same time, Murrieta resident Diana Serafin is trying to put a stop to the camera-cop program in her city.
Serafin is working to place a local initiative on the November 2012 ballot that, if approved, would bar the devices. She needs the signatures of 4,500 registered voters by Sept. 20.
"It started out when a couple of girlfriends got tickets" last winter, she said.
Serafin said her friends prepared elaborate defenses. "The judge was impressed," Serafin said. "But he said in the end ... 'We've got the video, you're guilty.'"
Serafin said she is trying to get rid of the cameras because the fines are outrageous, and the people who pay them have virtually no chance of prevailing in court.
"You should be able to face your accuser," she added. "And that's not the officer (who testifies in court) because the officer didn't see it."
Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, who represents a portion of Southwest Riverside County, tried earlier this year to enact a statewide moratorium on red-light cameras and ran into a roadblock in a legislative committee.
By now you've heard all the arguments for and against the technology. Camera advocates say the devices deter impatient motorists from running red lights and save lives. Opponents say they violate drivers' rights because a machine, rather than a police officer, records violations.
Whatever side you're on, it seems to me we ought at least to have some consistency.
If we really want machines patrolling our streets, then let's put cameras at every intersection in every city
But if we'd prefer to have real human beings patrol our streets, then let's take them all out.
Let's have a debate about who or what should be given the important responsibility of keeping our roads safe, instead of squeezing in a camera here or there on a piecemeal basis.
Call staff writer Dave Downey at 951-676-4315, ext. 2623.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/columnists/downey/article_5c30fed6-6f01-5130-89c3-bc1fc657f242.html#ixzz1WqvVKWxA
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/columnists/downey/article_5c30fed6-6f01-5130-89c3-bc1fc657f242.html#ixzz1WqvVKWxA
