5
Speed cameras: Good or bad?
A speed camera.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Tess Vigeland: If you were driving down a desert highway in Arizona late last night, you witnessed something big. No exploding cacti or anything like that. But the state Department of Public Safety shut off all its speed-trap cameras at 11:59 p.m. It's back to old-fashioned patrol car enforcement -- despite the fact that the cameras reduced speeding and brought money into the struggling state's coffers.
Eve Troeh reports.
Eve Troeh: The Arizona legislature spent $20 million to install speed cameras on state roads where there were lots of accidents. The cameras catch anyone going more than 10 miles over the speed limit.
Arizona State University economist Tim James says the cameras greatly reduce speeding. But, he says, many drivers don't think that's the point.
Tim James: There's always a perception that really what it's about it not control people's behavior, but it's a program that's always driven by revenue generation.
James is from the UK, where speed cameras have been widely used and disliked for years.
James: Speed cameras are referred to as "state money boxes" or "piggy banks."
In Arizona, the cameras have brought in much less money than expected. The program collected about $78 million in the past two years, less than half of what the government predicted.
Russ Rader is spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. He says decreased revenue shows the program is working.
Russ Rader: So the camera programs may generate a lot of tickets initially, but that revenue tails off as the cameras slow drivers down.
Rader says calling the cameras a sneaky way to tax citizens is just a ruse for what's really going on: Lots of people think speeding is OK.
Rader: Let's face it, we all speed to a certain degree during our daily driving, but the idea that we should let people set their own speed limits at more than 10 miles an hour over the posted limit is just ludicrous.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety says it would like to put more officers on the road now that the cameras are shut off. But the state simply doesn't have the money.
I'm Eve Troeh for Marketplace.
Speed cameras as well as red-light cameras are needed. I'd rather the driver to get the ticket; paying the price in criminal charges, fines & insurance costs. But the court case against Minneapolis proved that the driver can not be absolutely identified, and so the law was unconstitutional.
If the driver can't be determined; the owner of the car should always be fined. This is no different than parking illegally. The owner of the car is responsible for those that use his or her car. Laws like "illegal moving position of the car", or "illegal speed of car" can always be charged. In the cases where the driver can be identified, both the moving violation (of law) as well as the illegal use of the car may be applied. Not only would this address the personal responsibility or the driver, but it would also encourage the owner to only lend the car to trustworthy people.
These additional laws may be added by the state or municipality. Again, this is no different that current laws for illegal parking. The car is being used to move illegally; the owner of the car would be accountable for the use of the car. Parking tickets go to the owner. These laws would be no different.
ALL speed limit enforcement is selective taxation and driving by revenue gathering priorities rather than public safety.
Cameras operate successfully in Europe, particularly London, but have had mixed success in the US.
As commenter Lovelace mentions, I'd like to know more about how the decision was made to stop using them. Certainly with other social and political agendas going on in Arizona (read: immigration) the trend would seem to be heading toward more surveillance than less.
Speed limits are of course, designed for the lowest common denominator driver: the 16 yr old lacking experience to judge what speed a car can handle, or the senior driver who's reaction time won't allow for braking in time.
That being said, how does hidden law enforcement aid in enforcing the law? It doesn't reduce the speed, until weeks after the law has been broken. The car accident due to exceeding the driver's ability may occur long before the ticket enters the mail box.
Ironically, the best way to slow traffic, is letting the road infrastructure fail. Ever watch a $49,000 SUV observe the speed limit on a bumpy road? The vehicle is made for rough terrain, in Iraq contractors use that vehicle to travel near triple digit speeds over war-raveged roads to avoid being shot at, yet here the wealthy owner drives as slow as possible with that same vehicle.
Cut the DOT repair budget, lower the speeds and ticket revenue. Is this a recommendation,or a perpetual motion machine?
