More Editorial

• Commentary: New Mexico Tech's plans have some Socorro residents up in arms
• Trib takes: Feb. 20
• Bouquets & brickbats: Feb. 20

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Albuquerque Old Town
• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

City officials got an earful Tuesday night about the topic that just won't quit: red-light cameras and "Big Brother."

For more than two hours, at a hearing on the camera-cops, people mostly ranted against them, angrily insisting they are offensive intrusions and unaccountable, that they disconnect people from government, and smack of Nazism or communism.

Albuquerque folks just don't like these things that take photos of their vehicles running red lights, speeding through intersections or making illegal turns - all resulting in mailed traffic tickets and some pretty stiff fines.

Many people say the cameras do not account for the instant discretion motorists must use in negotiating intersections, which are not uniform in design or in traffic-light timing.

But if you break the law, shouldn't you pay? City officials say the cameras have significantly reduced crashes at the intersections where they are located. And that's why they were installed - right? - to improve public safety.

OK - so why is Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez suddenly changing his tune and threatening to shut them down rather than fork over $74 out of every $100 ticket to the state - which is what a Senate bill now under consideration in Santa Fe would require.

What difference does it make who gets the money, if the end result is improved public safety? Unless, of course, the real motivation behind the cameras is to gin up some quick, easy, noncontestable city revenues.

The city has earned an incredible $6 million in fines since the first camera was installed nearly two years ago. That's a lot of tickets, with fines ranging from $100 to $500, and it probably explains the citizens' ire.

Chavez said if the bill becomes law, the city wouldn't have enough left over to run the program and accused legislators of just seeing "green." That's like the till calling the change-dispenser evil.

It's clear this new technology has the potential to substantially improve public safety, provided it is wisely used, fairly applied and can maintain widespread public support.

Right now, there seems to be a lot more questions than answers. Chavez and the City Council might want to retreat, reconsider and redeploy, once they've addressed the myriad of public, legislative, technical and judicial concerns.

Perhaps they should consider a red-light summit and encourage the public to suggest some reforms or positive recommendations.

In other words, for now, put a red light on the red-light program.