TODAY'S PAPER
Good Morning
Good Morning
OpinionLetters

Letter: Red-light camera suit sparks reaction on LI

A sign warning of a red-light camera at

A sign warning of a red-light camera at an intersection in Commack. Credit: Steve Pfost

This is regarding the federal civil rights lawsuit that claims red-light cameras are unfair to poor people [“Suit: Red-light program unfair to poor motorists,” News, July 23]. In general, I believe the red-light cameras are just another way to raise revenues for municipalities. They are not for the stated purpose of traffic safety.

In this case, however, the two motorists who filed the suit, Rosina Ciervo and Celena McDaniel, had a total of 68 citations. I believe they should have their cars’ registrations suspended or revoked. Being poor is not an excuse for dangerous driving. These people are a danger to everyone. How many non-camera lights have they gone through? Why should they get a payment plan when they are repeat offenders?

The law should be that if you get more than a fixed number of citations in a defined amount of time, your registration is suspended or revoked.

Some people claim safety is the reason for the red-light cameras. So why not get these dangerous cars off the road? Because we do not know who is driving these cars, the county or state should go after the registrations of these vehicles. This would be a valid reason to keep the cameras. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Ned Daily,

Garden City Park

 

Regarding the article about the lawsuit against the red-light camera program: If these people are as poor as they say, they should have tried to avoid paying fines. They should have followed the traffic laws. That means that when you come to a traffic light, and it turns yellow as you approach, you should slow down, not speed up, in preparation of it turning red.

I have no sympathy for the two drivers. They broke the law; they have to pay their fines.

Glenn Nilsen,

West Babylon

  

It takes a lot of nerve to even consider a lawsuit when you have 25 and 43 unpaid violations, respectively. I guess these drivers feel that because they are poor, they can disregard laws put in place to protect all motorists and pedestrians — including them.

Had they injured, or even worse, killed someone during one of their violations, would they have accepted the consequences of their actions or hid behind them being poor? It comes down to a total disregard for driving laws. The camera that is programmed to catch driving violations does not know the drivers’ family income and it shouldn’t. Safe driving and taking responsibility for one’s actions is something everyone needs to do, whether they are considered rich or poor.

John R. Volpe,

East Meadow

  

I thought red-light cameras were installed to prevent accidents and save lives. Whether you are rich or poor, all you have to do is be patient and follow or learn the rules of the road. If you can’t afford the fine, then it will be best to take your time.

Richard Bunger,

Valley Stream

Columns