Why Speed and Red Light Cameras Are a Bad Idea

Let’s get something straight right from the start. Before the brainwashed cretins start in with their customary “the state is all powerful” whining. I am not an advocate of driving through red lights. The debate is about how laws are enforced. With that out of the way, here’s why we shouldn’t have cameras as speed or red light law enforcement tools.

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio — Mayor Gary Norton told residents Tuesday night that the city would lay off 68 city employees if voters agree to remove the city’s revenue-generating traffic cameras.

Norton said the city’s budget is about $22 million. He said the city’s estimated 10 red light and mobile cameras generate a little more than $1 million per year — the cost of the combined salary of the city employees.

About two dozen police and fire personnel stood side by side throughout the council meeting. Several city workers told the council that the cameras are effective and help deter crime. They said most of the people who receive tickets live outside the city.

Police Sgt. Scott Gardner, the police union representative, said the cameras allow officers to focus on bigger issues and if police or other public safety personnel are laid off, it would ultimately hurt the city.

Norton said the city would lay off 26 police officers, 10 police dispatchers, 14 firefighters, eight service department workers, two workers from the building and housing department, three senior center workers, and staff from its community development, parks and recreation, finance and human-resources departments.

So, what would happen if suddenly, people stopped setting off the cameras? This too would result in the same deficit.

You know what would happen? They just lower the tolerance, or install more, so that the income kept coming.

The objection to cameras lies in principle, which is why most Marxists can’t get it, being as they’re never going to understand that concept.

Mayor Norton is whining because he won’t have the money. He doesn’t want people to stop driving through red lights.

HE ACTUALLY WANTS THEM TO KEEP DOING SO, AND IF HE WAS TRUE TO HIMSELF, HE WOULD ADMIT HE WANTS THEM TO OFFEND IN GREATER NUMBERS.

Speed cameras and red light cameras are a means for petty bureaucrats like Mayor Norton and his gang of crooks to boost their tax take and employ more bureaucrats. What’s more, these bastards (like the unionist above) won’t ever take the camera’s down, because if that happens, they know they’re going to get fired.

So pro-camera advocates need to wake up. Its not about safety. Never has been. Don’t let these bureaucratic regulating thieving scum get away with this lie. Ask them where the money from the fines generated by the cameras goes, and there you will find the real reason for their existence.

5 thoughts on “Why Speed and Red Light Cameras Are a Bad Idea

  1. “Mayor Gary Norton told residents Tuesday night that the city would lay off 68 city employees if voters agree to remove the city’s revenue-generating traffic cameras.”

    Absolutely excellent move, getting rid of kept unionists is god’s work
    Gary is a philosopher after my own heart.

    You won’t even remember what their jobs were and why they existed in a year, Gaza.

    Like

  2. Note the “impartiality” of the statement about most offenders being out of towners.So that makes it OK then!

    Like

  3. Re : Speed cameras.
    If they were a safety issue then how does a static speed camera prevent crashes and death? Taking a picture of a car doesn’t prevent speeding or crashes.As we all know it’s revenue raising and the coppers should all hang their heads in shame for pushing the “speeding kills” lie.
    D.T.

    Like

Comments are closed.