•••
Marshall H. Tanick's takedown of "camera cops" suggests that such efforts are biased because authorities disproportionately place cameras in minority neighborhoods ("Camera cops: Something's wrong with this picture," Opinion Exchange, Dec. 1). Let's take him at his word that this bias will continue. However, a full consideration of this issue needs to include the benefits of taking cops out of the business of routine traffic stops. As the data show, and as recent notorious incidents attest, when cops stop drivers, minorities are more likely to face police action, whether a mere ticket or worse.
Assuming both forms of bias exist going forward, which is optimal, biased cameras or biased cops? I don't know the answer, but let's carefully consider the benefits and costs of both options when considering the question.
David Fettig, Minneapolis
•••
In his editorial counterpoint, Tanick succinctly summarized the shortcomings of attempts to enforce traffic laws using fines generated from an automated system of traffic cameras, implemented without authorization from the state Legislature. Yet the top letter to the editor on the facing page ("Enforce limits, save lives") points out the effectiveness of a speed camera in improving safety at a dangerous intersection.
There might be an approach that would achieve at least some of the traffic safety improvement goals, without issuing fines for traffic law violations, by outsourcing the problem to auto insurance companies. All states require a minimum level of liability insurance for each car issued a license plate. Insurance rates are set by many factors, including the driving safety record of the car's owner.