Letters to the Editor

Violators are speeders, not town of Ridgeland

Ridgeland instituted a traffic monitoring system to reduce speeding on Interstate 95. Results indicate accidents and injuries are reduced.

Now a state senator is engaging in a "mine's bigger than yours" contest. A proposed piece of retroactive legislation would force the town to pay the state $500 for each ticket issued -- effective back to the beginning, in apparent violation of the prohibition of ex post facto laws in the first clause of Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution.

The commonsense resolution is to install signs informing the public of cameras and other devices in operation, and that speeders will receive citations through the mail. This eliminates "speed trap" claims, which is misapplied here in the first place as speeders are given the benefit of an ample cushion -- 10 mph.

I have not heard a cogent argument against the process Ridgeland is using. Losing your chance to flash credentials, or apply your charms is not a valid reason. Life is hard. If you don't want a surprise in the mail, don't speed.

Legislation? How about a valid reason why every community should not do what Ridgeland is doing to reduce death and injury on our highways. Then this course of action might be seen as more than a thinly disguised effort to avoid a deserved citation.

Many jurisdictions use cameras to enforce traffic laws. There's nothing illegal, unconstitutional or un-American about it. Excessive speeding and endangering others on our highways is the violation here.

Paul KositzkaLady's Island

  Comments