I oppose the adoption of Ordinance 02-369 allowing use of speed cameras. I believe it is a fallacy that this is at all an effective safety measure much less a cost effective one.
As a resident of Los Alamos and daily driver I seldom witness excessive speeding as described in the justification for this ordinance. Indeed the incidences I witness occur on either NM 502 or NM 501 both of which are state routes or on Lab property where the county would not be able to place cameras. So this seems a knee-jerk reaction to fatal incidents which were indeed tragic, but would not be addressed by a camera passing out tickets by the Aquatic Center. Rather, I believe patrolled enforcement through overtime or hiring an additional officer would be far more effective as a safety measure and effective in areas where speed may indeed present a public hazard.
Because it is simple to then claim to have addressed a civic concern, this same mantra gets repeated to tout a system which primarily serves corporate interests. Studies of the impact of cameras consistently take credit for what is regression to the mean after placing the cameras based upon statistical aberrations. Neighboring states have moved to forbid municipalities from these installations.
As mentioned in the pitch for this ordinance, it is usually believed by local boards that there will be revenue from these systems. On the net, they wind up costing not only the exorbitant $300,000 estimate, but also additional staffing to handle contested tickets and program administration. The only net revenue seen is that which goes to RedFlex or whichever vendor is taking advantage of an unsuspecting public in Los Alamos. Perhaps this is the most troubling aspect. Fundamentally the use of cameras would be the Council's decision to grant a for-profit corporate interest the right to tax the residents of Los Alamos while delivering nothing. I hope I can count on the Council to reject this fleecing of their constituency!
I oppose the adoption of Ordinance 02-369 allowing use of speed cameras. I believe it is a fallacy that this is at all an effective safety measure much less a cost effective one.
As a resident of Los Alamos and daily driver I seldom witness excessive speeding as described in the justification for this ordinance. Indeed the incidences I witness occur on either NM 502 or NM 501 both of which are state routes or on Lab property where the county would not be able to place cameras. So this seems a knee-jerk reaction to fatal incidents which were indeed tragic, but would not be addressed by a camera passing out tickets by the Aquatic Center. Rather, I believe patrolled enforcement through overtime or hiring an additional officer would be far more effective as a safety measure and effective in areas where speed may indeed present a public hazard.
Because it is simple to then claim to have addressed a civic concern, this same mantra gets repeated to tout a system which primarily serves corporate interests. Studies of the impact of cameras consistently take credit for what is regression to the mean after placing the cameras based upon statistical aberrations. Neighboring states have moved to forbid municipalities from these installations.
As mentioned in the pitch for this ordinance, it is usually believed by local boards that there will be revenue from these systems. On the net, they wind up costing not only the exorbitant $300,000 estimate, but also additional staffing to handle contested tickets and program administration. The only net revenue seen is that which goes to RedFlex or whichever vendor is taking advantage of an unsuspecting public in Los Alamos. Perhaps this is the most troubling aspect. Fundamentally the use of cameras would be the Council's decision to grant a for-profit corporate interest the right to tax the residents of Los Alamos while delivering nothing. I hope I can count on the Council to reject this fleecing of their constituency!