Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s running for governor, had this — among other things — to say to a North Texas tea party group: “Both the advocates of red light cameras and their detractors have a point. One emphasizes safety, and the other emphasizes privacy.”

Let’s hold it right there.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/05/governors-race-draws-spotlight-red-light-cameras/

I am an advocate of red-light camera technology, which is being deployed in many cities across the state, including Amarillo. I see it as a safety issue. It is making it safer for people to drive without getting clobbered by idiots who ignore street lights instructing them to stop.

The other side, I am presuming from Abbott’s remark, suggests that the cameras are “invasive” and that they intrude on people’s “privacy.”

I’ve had this argument with more anti-red light camera residents in Amarillo than I care to count.

My point about the so-called privacy issue simply is this: Motorists driving vehicles on public streets, putting other people’s health and their very lives, by ignoring traffic laws have no inherent right of privacy. Period.

Some of those foes suggest that government is overreaching by allowing cities to implement these devices. They stand behind some bogus conservative political theory that says government has no right to intrude in this manner.

My answer? That is pure crap.

The state used to prohibit cities from deploying these cameras. Then the Legislature changed part of its collective mind by allowing the cameras, but then requiring cities to dedicate revenue raised from fines to traffic safety improvements. That’s all fine. The state also takes a significant cut of the revenue raised. That’s OK too.

The people elected to govern cities deserve the chance to determine what’s best for the communities. Amarillo’s elected commission (now city council) decided in 2008 that it was in the city’s best interest to deploy these cameras at selected intersections. Have the cameras stopped red-light runners? No. They have, however, deterred some folks from doing it and they have raised revenue to pay for improvements in traffic signalization around the city.

I am tiring rapidly, though, of the argument that the anti-camera crowd keeps harping on regarding privacy. These clowns aren’t protecting anything except their bogus “right” to break traffic laws.

Tom Pauken, another GOP candidate for governor, opposes the cameras. He says they’re intent is to raise money, not make streets safer. Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth — which has the cameras deployed — also is running for governor; she favors the cameras.

Let us have this debate. I want to hear candidates for governor explain rationally how privacy matters when it involves motorists traveling along publicly owned streets.