Monday, May 14, 2007

Smile, I'm on red-light camera

FrontBurner | Trey Garrison:
“I guess we all saw this coming. After more than a year of complaining about the red-light camera scam, they finally got me. Dead to rights. But what a scam. I'm to pay $75 to the city of Plano.”
Ed Cognoski responds:

I'd like to think Trey Garrison is speaking with his tongue planted firmly in cheek. He admits to running a red light. He admits to putting other drivers' safety at risk. He admits to getting caught, fairly and squarely. He admits to being given all the information needed to contest the citation. But he still calls it a scam. Why?

Because the fine isn't large enough for him to fight. As if the size of the fine is really what's at stake here. As if opponents of red light camera enforcement would not have considered it a "scam" if the fine had been set at $300 instead of $75. If Mr Garrison has evidence that cities chose the size of the fine to maximize revenue, let him produce it. Otherwise, he ought to quit complaining and pay his deserved penalty. When you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar is a bad time to complain about the unfairness of life. It's a good time to pledge to stop at red lights in future.

There are those who see running red lights as a threat to public safety and those who see it as harmless. There are those who want to enhance law enforcement's ability to catch and punish offenders and those who don't. There are those who get caught and learn their lesson and those who get caught and whine about a "scam" and broadcast a call for lawyers to "throw a wrench into the works." It's people like that who give lawyers a bad name. No tongue in cheek here, either.

No comments: