Why I'm against speed cameras.
Today, I went to a neighborhood meeting about the possibility of installing speed humps on the street I live on. This was, for the most part, a pretty useful affair, but as was sure to happen, there was one person there being obtuse to a darned near malicious level. He suggested that a better solution would be a radar speed camera.
Since I can't rant at him, I rant at you. Here's why I'm against speed cameras.
- At least here in the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees me the right to face my accuser in court. Sure, they've assigned an 'accuser' to the ticket, and rubber-stamped his signature at the bottom of the ticket. Now, this officer isn't actually _there_. His job is simply to be the official who has issued the citation. He's not at the scene. He didn't see what happened. He may not even be alive.
Indeed, the actual cameras aren't even owned or operated by government officials: they're done on contract, and in many locations, the company that owns and operates the cameras isn't getting a flat rate from the local government, they're getting a cut of every ticket.
- Similarly, the speed camera has no idea who is actually driving my car. They simply issue the ticket and expect me to pay for it. In theory, we Americans are innocent until proven guilty. If a speeding ticket shows up in the mail with my wife's name on it, you know I was the one driving, and I know I was the one driving, and if there had been an arresting officer, he would know I was the one driving, but the camera's got no idea. Amy would be required to pay the ticket or write a registered letter explaining she wasn't the one driving-- and she's required to provide corroborating evidence, like handing over my name and address. If I remember my junior high school Civics class correctly, it's the burden of the _prosecution_ to present a case beyond a reasonable doubt-- and I have to figure that there are plenty enough married couples who drive each other's cars that this doubt isn't particularly unreasonable.
- Speed cameras aren't actually intended to make our roads safer: Their primary purpose is to pad government budgets. Why else would they simply charge $40 (which is notably less than if a police officer writes you an equivalent citation?) and no points against your license? $40 isn't a deterrent, in fact, it's below most people's threshold of pain, which is exactly the point. The intent is not to deter you from speeding, it's to make it so you'll just write the check and be done with it. If the important part was to make your wallet feel lighter from having broken the law, they wouldn't charge you an extra $2 to cover credit card charges; if the important part is punishing you then does it really matter that $2 of the fine went to the credit card company as long as it left your bank account? And they don't assess points to your license because that might spur you to fight the charge, which would take up time in courtrooms, which costs money.
It makes sense to implement them for revenue. As an example, Forest Heights, Maryland, recently implemented speed cameras. Their projected speed camera income in their 2011 budget is 2.88 million dollars, less 1.18 million to operate them, leaving 1.7 million dollars in revenue. By way of comparison, their entire 2007 budget was over $400,000 less than the amount they expect to make on speed cameras this year.
Some areas are even reducing speed limits after installing cameras. Sadly, I can't find the really fun article anymore where the county justified the speed limit decrease because there was now a pole near the side of the road that meant the old speed was unsafe-- the very pole they put the camera on.
The former county executive here has gone on record stating that he believes speed cameras are basically a tax, but this fact should be taken with a grain of salt: That may just mean he couldn't find someone to bribe him to sign off on it and $3000 steak dinners weren't enough for him.
They're contrary to my rights as an American citizen, they're not actually put in place to do their advertised job, and they're such big money that they create a breeding ground for corruption. What's not to love?
Since I can't rant at him, I rant at you. Here's why I'm against speed cameras.
- At least here in the United States, the Bill of Rights guarantees me the right to face my accuser in court. Sure, they've assigned an 'accuser' to the ticket, and rubber-stamped his signature at the bottom of the ticket. Now, this officer isn't actually _there_. His job is simply to be the official who has issued the citation. He's not at the scene. He didn't see what happened. He may not even be alive.
Indeed, the actual cameras aren't even owned or operated by government officials: they're done on contract, and in many locations, the company that owns and operates the cameras isn't getting a flat rate from the local government, they're getting a cut of every ticket.
- Similarly, the speed camera has no idea who is actually driving my car. They simply issue the ticket and expect me to pay for it. In theory, we Americans are innocent until proven guilty. If a speeding ticket shows up in the mail with my wife's name on it, you know I was the one driving, and I know I was the one driving, and if there had been an arresting officer, he would know I was the one driving, but the camera's got no idea. Amy would be required to pay the ticket or write a registered letter explaining she wasn't the one driving-- and she's required to provide corroborating evidence, like handing over my name and address. If I remember my junior high school Civics class correctly, it's the burden of the _prosecution_ to present a case beyond a reasonable doubt-- and I have to figure that there are plenty enough married couples who drive each other's cars that this doubt isn't particularly unreasonable.
- Speed cameras aren't actually intended to make our roads safer: Their primary purpose is to pad government budgets. Why else would they simply charge $40 (which is notably less than if a police officer writes you an equivalent citation?) and no points against your license? $40 isn't a deterrent, in fact, it's below most people's threshold of pain, which is exactly the point. The intent is not to deter you from speeding, it's to make it so you'll just write the check and be done with it. If the important part was to make your wallet feel lighter from having broken the law, they wouldn't charge you an extra $2 to cover credit card charges; if the important part is punishing you then does it really matter that $2 of the fine went to the credit card company as long as it left your bank account? And they don't assess points to your license because that might spur you to fight the charge, which would take up time in courtrooms, which costs money.
It makes sense to implement them for revenue. As an example, Forest Heights, Maryland, recently implemented speed cameras. Their projected speed camera income in their 2011 budget is 2.88 million dollars, less 1.18 million to operate them, leaving 1.7 million dollars in revenue. By way of comparison, their entire 2007 budget was over $400,000 less than the amount they expect to make on speed cameras this year.
Some areas are even reducing speed limits after installing cameras. Sadly, I can't find the really fun article anymore where the county justified the speed limit decrease because there was now a pole near the side of the road that meant the old speed was unsafe-- the very pole they put the camera on.
The former county executive here has gone on record stating that he believes speed cameras are basically a tax, but this fact should be taken with a grain of salt: That may just mean he couldn't find someone to bribe him to sign off on it and $3000 steak dinners weren't enough for him.
They're contrary to my rights as an American citizen, they're not actually put in place to do their advertised job, and they're such big money that they create a breeding ground for corruption. What's not to love?