Red-light cameras are not about safety

Your editorial highlights the fact that red-light cameras are more about money than safety ["Nassau bungling red-light issue," April 15].

There are several solutions: 1) Have a bright flashing strobe light, which is common at high-speed intersections. 2) In some parts of Europe, the green light starts blinking as it is about to turn yellow. This gives the driver warning so he can prepare to stop, depending on how far he is from the intersection.

The above is what should be done if it were really about safety. And those solutions are far less expensive than the cameras. Absent that, I feel that there should be a one-second "grace period" after the light turns red. This will catch real violators, not just drivers who misjudge the yellow.

Edward Schwartz, Dix Hills
 

The installation of the red-light camera system for safety reasons is a false pretense. Ninety-nine percent of the time when a person runs a red light, it is in error; to err is human.

Besides, this does not nullify the responsibility of the driver who is stopped at the red light. He or she must look both ways when it turns green before proceeding through the intersection, in case someone blows through the red light.

If the concern was safety, then the first-time offender would merely be given a warning and not a fine. By the county's own figures, only one person in seven is a repeat offender. Clearly, the idea behind this was to create yet another governmental revenue stream.

This is not the action of a benevolent government. To the contrary, this is an intrusion and expansion of a bloated Big Brother monster government into another aspect of our lives. This makes the roads safer just like the Federal Reserve's printing of money out of thin air makes us a wealthier nation.

Frank DelliSanti, Deer Park