Even tolerant motorists have good reason to disdain those who run red lights or speed dangerously, but using traffic-camera technology to bring the reckless to justice carries its own risks.

The state went through that ordeal in 2002 with the use of cameras in white vans — derisively dubbed the "Talivan" — to catch speeders. The Legislature hastily repealed the program in the midst of opposition by the public, which saw that the program seemed to operate more to generate commissions for the vendor than to make streets safer.

Now the Legislature wants to try again, with counties operating red-light and speed-limit cameras mounted wherever such violations are common. While there’s no private vendor this time, the idea nonetheless raises problems similar to those created by the van cam debacle. Legislators should avoid an encore.

The state House has approved two related bills, House Bills 2790 and 2789, aimed at catching red-light violators and speeders, respectively, using automated-camera systems that take pictures of the violators and generate citations to the registered owners of the vehicles.

The system would be administered by the county, and revenue from ticket fines, which are levied in state courts, would be deposited to a special account in the state general fund. The fines then would be funneled to the county where the tickets were issued and go to pay for the photo equipment and the cost of running the system.

There are numerous problems that the bills fail to address adequately:

» Unlike with a police officer, there’s no discretion. The speed-detector system could automatically ticket both the egregious violator and the driver inadvertently going just barely over the limit. Driving conditions, such as the safe flow of traffic, would not be considered.

» The citation would go to the registered owner of the vehicle, days or weeks later, regardless of who’s driving. If the owner wasn’t driving the vehicle, he or she can challenge the citation. But some of the options offered by the bills — such as testifying or calling witnesses in open court — are burdensome. Of course, since a robotic camera system can be expected to generate a higher volume of citations, one also can expect a higher volume of court challenges, especially since a citation can increase a driver’s auto insurance premiums.

» If the system fails or is abandoned, the government will be stuck with useless equipment.

This is not to say that traffic-camera systems are doomed to failure. There is no doubt that our roadways can be made safer by cracking down on traffic scofflaws, and there is some evidence in national studies that such cameras, especially red-light cameras, can reduce accidents.

"Technology can absolutely help make roads safer, and red-light cameras and speed cameras, on properly engineered roadways, can play a proper role in that," says Justin McNaull of AAA, the automobile travel organization. "The devil is in the details as to how these things are implemented."

It’s those details that the Legislature needs to reconsider.

Bringing down the hammer of the law on motorists is not something to be done lightly or arbitrarily. Before turning over law-enforcement duties to an automated system, the Legislature needs to make sure such systems will operate fairly and in the best interests of both public safety and civil liberties.