LETTER: Good reasons to be against traffic cameras

Regarding C. Corbin’s Jan. 24 letter “Hiding something”: The writer doesn’t understand why anybody would be against traffic cameras. As someone who lived with them, I can.

It’s not about surveillance creep. It’s the reality of living with the cameras. They don’t really reduce the number of accidents, they just cause different types. They may catch some scofflaws not stopping before turning right, but they cause other behaviors such as racing to get through a yellow or slamming on the brakes and skidding to a stop. In Ventura, California, they just changed the type of accidents from T-bones to rear-enders.

As for the cameras being a “huge revenue maker,” that turns out to be false also. They actually cost more than they make. If the city or county buys and maintains the cameras, there is a large upfront expense as well as ongoing costs. But even if you use one of the companies that install and maintain them, most of the money goes to that private company. The government will still have to employ at least one full-time deputy to make court appearances whenever an accused speeder goes to court. Oxnard, California, was losing money each year on them.

Don’t make Nevada like California.