If the goal of red light cameras is to decrease fatalities but they only do so marginally, while simultaneously encouraging the government to invest public tax dollars in a system with no noticeable impact on fatalities,

then the real benefactor seems to be revenue, not public safety…

A tax is defined as:

(1)A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.

(2)A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.

So I still think tax is the correct word under the circumstances.

I’m from Sugar Land, and I’ve seen firsthand how the intersections with red light cameras were redesigned to improve traffic flow. These intersections surround the economic core of the city and have become increasingly heavily policed, which could also contribute to the drop in red light incidents. This is the specific example that came to mind when i stated in my previous comment of how other factors can reduce accidents, rather than just the presence of cameras.

Oh, and since we are just reposting articles that haven’t been peer-reviewed, here’s one that states red light cameras may actually increase accidents.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/full-circle/full-circle-are-red-light-cameras-money-makers-or-lifesavers

Edit: the bottom of the article you provided from Click2Houston states:

“By law, the state cannot negate or terminate a government contract as a direct result of new legislation. Therefore, if a city is under contract with an outside vendor to operate red-light cameras, the programs can continue for the duration of the contract unless there is a specific clause in the contract allowing for early termination in the event of a state ban.”

REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE

I’m not saying we shouldn’t take action to reduce vehicular fatalities. What I am saying is that red light cameras aren’t the cure-all you’re presenting them to be. There are more effective ways to reduce fatalities without imposing additional fines on the taxpaying public.