What do you do when you hate the possible solution to a problem but can’t think of a better one? Is it best to accept the bad solution or just realize you’ll have to live with the problem?

That’s the situation members of the Unicameral find themselves in right now as they try to find a solution to the red light runners.

Don’t try to tell me that you haven’t done it. We all have at one time or another. Don’t deny that at one time or another, you have sped up to beat a red light. Sometimes you can make it and sometimes you can’t.

Last year Nebraska saw the largest number of traffic fatalities in almost two decades. Two hundred and fifty-one people died on our highways. Some of them were T-boned by a car running a red light.

State Senator John Cavanaugh has proposed LB 616 which would use technology to try to stop the red light runners. This bill would use automatic license plate readers to catch driv-ers in the act as they try to beat the yellow warning or just ignore the red light altogether.

If the camera were to catch you, there would be a civil penalty, but no criminal charges would be filed. There would be no points assessed against your license.

I hate red light runners, but I hate red light cameras just as much.

Another bill being discussed would put cameras in highway construction areas to catch those driving over the speed limit.

Senator Wendy DeBoer has proposed LB 600 which would allow for cameras to detect speeders not only in construction areas but also in areas deemed to be dangerous.

The penalties for when your car experiences a Kodak moment are up for debate. Everything from a warning to a criminal violation is being considered for repeat offenders.

We live in a world where cameras are everywhere. They can be very valuable in catching someone after they’ve broken the law. But there’s a big difference between using them as evidence to support criminal charges and using these cameras to press the charges them-selves.

And I’m not the only one to have a problem with these bills.

In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a spokesperson for the Nebraska Sher-iffs and Police Associations said that although cameras are valuable for finding missing per-sons and fighting violent and property crimes they shouldn’t be used for law enforcement.

He also testified there is evidence that red light cameras can cause crashes as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid the wrath of the eye in the sky.

It’s not surprising that the ACLU also opposes these bills. They are concerned with what the companies who provide these cameras do with the data after they collect it.

And while these traffic violations are criminal in nature, they don’t believe they can be changed to civil violations just because they use a different technology.

I’m not some Luddite who’s opposed to technology. However, I am opposed to technology being used in this manner. If someone is speeding or running a red light they should be ob-served by a police officer. If the driver can’t convince the officer to give them a warning, they have a right to defend themselves in a court of law.

Nothing will be done about this during this session of the Unicameral, but the camel’s nose is under the tent. With the explosive growth of A.I., what will the future hold? Will comput-ers wind up being not only the accuser but judge and jury as well for more and more crimes? Are we going to wind up in some dystopian world that takes the human element out of eve-rything?

I know a lot of other states are using cameras for traffic enforcement. But as the song says, “There is no place like Nebraska.” We don’t have to be like other states. Let’s try to keep the human element involved as long as possible.

Now that I think of it, I may have come up with a better solution to lower the number of deaths on the highway after all. How about a big ad campaign reminding people if they get caught speeding or running red lights, their car insurance will go up costing them more money. Hit them in the pocketbooks. They can even go darker with the campaign and re-mind us of what the penalty is for vehicular homicide.

It's not a perfect solution but it’s better than the camera idea.

Tom Becka is a long time Nebraska broadcaster who for over 30 years has been covering Omaha and Midwest issues on both radio and TV. He has been a guest on numerous national cable and news shows, filled in for nationally syndicated talk radio programs and Talkers Magazine has recognized him as one of the Top 100 talk show hosts in the country 10 times. Never afraid to ruffle some feathers, his ‘Becka’s Beat’ commentaries can be found online on Youtube and other digital platforms.

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.