I find myself laughing at the headline addressing the addition of more red light cameras; and by the way, speed cameras.
What did people expect? Meanwhile, our city officials are again trotting out the tired mantra that “it’s not about money, it is about safety.”
Clue: When a public official tells you that it is not about the money, hang on to your wallet, and be assured that it is indeed about the money.
The proverbial camel does not have his nose under the tent flap. Rather, from my perspective, it is the hind end of the animal that is now permanently parked in our tent, and he is beginning to smell.
In this particular scam, a portion of the ticket receipts go to servicing the contract requirements for the camera company. Another portion is allotted to the personnel requirements for reviewing the tapes. (As a side note, I find it more than interesting that the city counts all of this time as overtime).
In the end, the remainder of the money goes into the city general fund. Finally, a significant portion of the general fund goes to law enforcement; and we all know that law enforcement falls under the general rubric of safety. Thus, it is not about money, it is suddenly all about safety — depending on the meaning of the word, “is”.
The next objection I have is about the process that is foisted off on those pathetic miscreants and scofflaws who speed or run stoplights. The ticket is sold as a non-moving violation. In the case of red light tickets, it is $124; far more for the speeding tickets. If you pay this, the ticket does not go on your record and your insurance company is none the wiser. Thus you are financially compelled to pay the ticket and not contest the matter. The second aspect to this equation is that the infraction notice does not tell people that a positive defense is the simple assertion that they were not opperating the vehicle at the time of the infraction. The ticket also implies that you must tell them who was driving the vehicle; this, contrary to statutory requirements.
Judges are also unlikely to appraise defendents of these facts, and in the end you are still required to show up in court if you want to contest the ticket. Conversely, an auto dealership or rental agency may simply submit a statement to the court identifying the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
If this was truly about safety and justice, then a defendant would be able to respond to the ticket with a simple mailed affidavit that they were not opperating the vehicle at the time of the infraction. Judges would be responsible for appraising defendants of the basic positive defenses available. Further, funds generated by these cameras would pay for the private contract expenses; pay employees on a straight time basis to review the tapes; and the remaining revenue would be paid to Federal Way citizens as a tax rebate. Citizen initiative anyone?
My question to you is, where will this current path end? How many cameras, how many lights before we decide that perhaps this really isn’t just about safety, and that maybe even we, the normally law abiding types, have something at stake here?
David Koenig, Federal Way
