I've said it before - if you want to discover the absolute worst way to solve any problem, get the government involved. By the time the government is done, whatever the original problem was will pale in comparison to the new list of problems created in attempting to solve said original problem. What's that? You don't think so? Well, fortunately I just so happen to have an example for your review.
In Dallas, like most cities with stop lights, there was a problem with people running red lights and causing accidents. Back in the day, before remote computer operated surveillance cameras, it was up to traffic cops to cite people for failure to yield or whatever the applicable offense is. The offender would receive a ticket, pay the fine, and hopefully learn a valuable lesson. In reality, there are way more cars running red lights in a city the size of Dallas than there are patrol cars monitoring the intersections, so tickets for running a red light were reserved for the drunken idiots dumb enough to run a red light while intoxicated.
With the advent of remote computer operated surveillance cameras, Dallas was able to install hundreds of cameras at busy intersections. Naturally, more people were caught running a red light. Ok, simple enough. But here's how government managed to screw up this otherwise simple idea: like anything else in this world, the cameras and accompanying computer system cost money. Instead of budgeting this expense into the annual budget, the brainiacs on the Dallas City Council decided to make the Safelight program fund itself. In other words, the proceeds from the fines would pay for the cameras and computers. Ok, that's great - no more taxes, streets are safer. Everyone is happy.
But wait - what happens if the cameras actually deter people from running red lights? Shocking as it may seem, if you make it easier for people to get caught breaking the law, people will stop breaking the law. Especially if it costs them $75 a pop to run a red light. This is what has happened in Dallas. There has been a significant drop in the number of citations. So much so that the system is no longer paying for itself, and Dallas is having to turn off the cameras, because they can't afford them anymore. And who picks up the slack when the cameras are off? The traffic cops who were responsible for it in the first place.
It's not over. It's government, so we have another issue to deal with - obviously, the cameras deter people from running red lights and causing accidents. Because Dallas is opting not to engage an effective deterrent to a threat to public safety, it could be argued that the City of Dallas is now negligent when it comes to accidents involving people running red lights.
Let's recap:
1. Lots of people were running red lights in Dallas.
2. To solve the problem, Dallas opted for a red light camera system that was funded by the fines generated from people running red lights.
3. The system actually worked. People stopped running red lights which means no more money to keep the system running.
4. Dallas turns off cameras to save money, but becomes liable for idiots running red lights and causing accidents.
Brilliant.
So in attempting to solve one problem, Dallas created two other problems and effectively rendered the solution that worked useless. Good job, Dallas.
In Dallas, like most cities with stop lights, there was a problem with people running red lights and causing accidents. Back in the day, before remote computer operated surveillance cameras, it was up to traffic cops to cite people for failure to yield or whatever the applicable offense is. The offender would receive a ticket, pay the fine, and hopefully learn a valuable lesson. In reality, there are way more cars running red lights in a city the size of Dallas than there are patrol cars monitoring the intersections, so tickets for running a red light were reserved for the drunken idiots dumb enough to run a red light while intoxicated.
With the advent of remote computer operated surveillance cameras, Dallas was able to install hundreds of cameras at busy intersections. Naturally, more people were caught running a red light. Ok, simple enough. But here's how government managed to screw up this otherwise simple idea: like anything else in this world, the cameras and accompanying computer system cost money. Instead of budgeting this expense into the annual budget, the brainiacs on the Dallas City Council decided to make the Safelight program fund itself. In other words, the proceeds from the fines would pay for the cameras and computers. Ok, that's great - no more taxes, streets are safer. Everyone is happy.
But wait - what happens if the cameras actually deter people from running red lights? Shocking as it may seem, if you make it easier for people to get caught breaking the law, people will stop breaking the law. Especially if it costs them $75 a pop to run a red light. This is what has happened in Dallas. There has been a significant drop in the number of citations. So much so that the system is no longer paying for itself, and Dallas is having to turn off the cameras, because they can't afford them anymore. And who picks up the slack when the cameras are off? The traffic cops who were responsible for it in the first place.
It's not over. It's government, so we have another issue to deal with - obviously, the cameras deter people from running red lights and causing accidents. Because Dallas is opting not to engage an effective deterrent to a threat to public safety, it could be argued that the City of Dallas is now negligent when it comes to accidents involving people running red lights.
Let's recap:
1. Lots of people were running red lights in Dallas.
2. To solve the problem, Dallas opted for a red light camera system that was funded by the fines generated from people running red lights.
3. The system actually worked. People stopped running red lights which means no more money to keep the system running.
4. Dallas turns off cameras to save money, but becomes liable for idiots running red lights and causing accidents.
Brilliant.
So in attempting to solve one problem, Dallas created two other problems and effectively rendered the solution that worked useless. Good job, Dallas.
