Apparently, it’s under consideration. But this bit is troubling:
Paying for the system could become a Catch-22 situation, Assistant Director of Public Works Tim Foster told the board, because while tickets issued as a result of the cameras might initially pay the monthly fees and produce extra revenue for the county, it’s likely that fewer violations would occur as motorists became familiar with the system.
“We want to see a decrease in violations,” he said, but that would result in a greater cost burden to the county.
So what are the cameras for, revenue or safety? It’s the same sort of argument that, for a time, swirled around the state’s abuser fees.
And let’s not forget another possible consequence of installing such cameras:
…some studies have suggested that use of cameras can cause an increase in accidents, when cars stop suddenly to avoid entering intersections and are rear-ended, Foster said.
But at least they aren’t running red lights. And who knows? Those rear-end collisions could result in a few more reckless driving citations… which could help pay for the cameras… which might cause more rear-end collisions… which could pay for even more cameras, which might cause even more wrecks and more citations.
Maybe it’s about revenue after all.