In response to this opinion column in the Chronicle by Bill King, I sent the following letter:

re:  Red light camera program changes driving behavior

One of the main arguments being used against the red light cameras is that they aren't really in place to promote public safety, but rather as a new stream of revenue for local government.  In his column supporting the cameras, Bill King seems to validate this claim with his emphasis on the loss in revenue to the city that would result in "more pressure on next year's budget".  Never mind that if the true stated purpose of the cameras were met — meaning zero red light offenses — the city would receive no revenue whatsoever.

Moreover, the only evidence Mr. King provides that the cameras are effective is anecdotal:  that his own habits have changed.  Perhaps his own example is representative of drivers across the city, but without data to support that claim — data showing a statistically significant decrease in red light-related violations and accidents — the musings of one person are not really relevant to the argument.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

One of the arguments being used against the red light cameras is that they aren't in place for public safety, but rather as a revenue generator. It would seem that Mr. King's own advocacy falls right in line with this — don't get rid of the red light cameras, they bring in too much money. Of course in terms of public safety, he has nothing to offer except anecdotal evidence. Does it make driving in Houston more or less safe? Mr. King apparently neither knows or cares, so long as it brings more money into the government coffers.