More thoughts regarding traffic control cameras

In an earlier post, I expressed my wholehearted support for the use of traffic control cameras to catch speeders and red-light runners. My attitude was and continues to be - if you don't want your picture taken, don't speed or run a red light. Duh.

The newest argument that opponents of traffic control cameras are attempting to use is that the flash of a camera going off will startle the driver(s), and people will be slamming on their brakes because the flash scared them, and that this in and of itself is a danger, and therefore the cameras should be gotten rid of.

Oh puh-leeze. I've been on the freeway when one of these cameras flashed, and I didn't notice drivers slowing down or slamming on their brakes when the flash went off. Ditto with people running red lights. And while I'm not denying such a thing *could* happen, I think that the danger that speeders and red-light runners pose is MUCH greater than the danger of people "slamming on their brakes because the flash startled them." It's already an established fact that people who speed or run red lights are a threat and a danger, while the argument I've heard camera opponents use (are you listening, Austin Hill of KTAR radio?) is that "it's bound to happen" that accidents will be caused by drivers who are startled by the camera flash and slam on their brakes. If it's "bound to happen," that means it isn't happening NOW with any great frequency (notice the future tense of "bound to happen") and yet these cameras have been around for several years now. Why aren't we hearing about accidents happening all the time with these startled drivers? We hear about accidents from people who ran red lights and plowed into other drivers, or idiots speeding down the freeway who rammed into somebody, but I have yet to hear very many, if ANY, accounts of accidents from these drivers who are supposedly startled by cameras flashing and hit their brakes.

Keep the cameras! If you don't want your picture taken, obey the law! (Mr. Hill's argument on KTAR radio earlier this week was that in a perfect world, everyone would obey the law, but a lot of people aren't going to obey the law EVEN IF we have the cameras, so why not get rid of the cameras? Ok, Mr. Hill, then using your lack of logic, in a perfect world, people would obey the law so as not to get stopped by an officer patrolling a freeway or intersection, but unfortunately, a lot of people are going to break the law even if an officer is right there with a radar gun to catch them and give them a ticket - so why are we paying police officers to patrol traffic if some people are going to break the law anyway? That dog don't hunt, Mr. Hill! Try another argument, one that isn't so lame!)