7:30 AM EDT, September 18, 2012
For the third day in a row The Sun has used the word "revenue" to identify the fines collected from speed- and red-light cameras ("Not so fast," Sept. 14). But these are fines, not revenue. If the city wanted revenue it could solve its budget issues simply by posting cameras along the JFX. What a windfall that would be.
I do not know how your editors get around the city, but the places where I drive frequently — Northern Parkway, Charles Street, Boston Street and the JFX — have speed limits that are infrequently observed and rarely enforced.
Yet you say the city's camera program must be flawed because more, rather than fewer, drivers are receiving traffic-camera tickets. The arithmetic would tell you that more drivers violating traffic laws equals more drivers being caught by these cameras and that's what produces more tickets.
Perhaps this is one reason insurance companies charge city residents more. How is it that some drivers don't get the fact that if you speed and ignore red lights you will be ticketed by a camera?
As for the size and location of signs warning drivers of the cameras' presence, would the editors have the police announce and post their undercover investigations? Streets throughout the city seem to be posted adequately with speed limit signs. In any case, the city already posts the locations of its cameras on its web site.
The Sun should do a report on how much over the 12 mph threshold these scofflaws are speeding and how many are repeat violators. I think the line given in another Sun editorial got it right: "Those who don't want to be ticketed need only follow the law."
James F. Hejl, Baltimore
Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun