They're Always Watching You, Slow Down

Just after the events of 9/11 it seemed a little unreasonable when isolated voices like the ACLU shouted warnings about the increasing number of cameras appearing everywhere in public spaces under the premise that they were being used to protect us from terrorists and to monitor us for our own safety. Under those unusual circumstances, sacrificing a little personal privacy for the better public good seemed like the least we could do.

But then local law enforcement offices, city budget directors, highly paid lobbyists, and politicians got together and extended public safety into "revenue enhancement". All of those warm fuzzy feelings of communal safety fade pretty quickly when the first, and then the second speeding ticket appears in your mailbox from a camera enforced traffic zone. These enforcement areas use cameras mounted along select city streets to monitor a vehicles speed, record those cars traveling above the posted speed limit, and automatically send violations to the "offender".

In one month (March, 2006) in Washington, DC this type of program netted $3.3 million dollars for the "general fund" of the city coffers (meaning: use the money as they see fit). But there are no real witnesses to the crime, usually there is no policeman involved, no judge, no jury - just a photo of you car and license plate that arrives in the mail with the statement that you were traveling at this amount of excessive speed and owe a specified number of dollars in fines.

Is this just sour grapes on one driver's part for getting caught speeding? Initially, yes. But then I went back (slowly) down the same road where the citation was issued. Its a multi-jurisdictional four lane street that goes from suburban Maryland to downtown DC to suburban Virginia. Only a quarter of a mile (in DC) of this road is camera equipped. On most days the rush hour traffic volume doesn't even allow one to go the 30 mph speed limit posted. But after rush hour and on weekends certainly going 35-40 mph wouldn't be unsafe or unreasonable, though it may be modestly illegal. That's where the camera's come in and the money is made. Even driving safely for the existing conditions will net you a citation if you happen to be in the wrong 1/4 mile of the road.

"In November [2005], AAA designated the District as a "strict enforcement area" -- the first time in the organization's 105-year history that an entire city received the label.

Mr. Townsend said authorities should conduct formal studies to determine rational and reasonable speed limits, particularly for thoroughfares such as Interstate 295.

"I'm not justifying speeding, but most people are not woeful and wanton lawbreakers," he said. "If everyone knows that the cameras are there and are still being [cited for] speeding, then obviously people are speeding for reasons other than having a lead foot."

The police department, city council, and mayor will all chime in accordingly that this is just a matter of enforcing the law and providing a safe driving environment. While certainly no one wants to see dangerous speeds driven on any road, or accidents caused by running red lights, does the data support the claim that these camera watch-dogs reduce accidents. No it doesn't.

"There are no statistics that show the cameras decrease the number of traffic accidents or fatalities. The number of fatalities in the District decreased from 69 in 2003 to 45 in 2004. However, the number increased last year to 49."

But there is growing evidence that cities across the country are getting used to the increased revenue streams these programs produce. In 5 years these cameras have generated over $100 million dollars for Washington, DC. And it's somewhat ill gotten money, a no-bid contract with plenty of lobbyist dollars left in its wake. The only thing that improved in the latest version of the contract was that there were no longer incentives to issue more tickets:

"The new contract pays ACS a flat fee of about $850,000 per month. Previously, the company received a flat monthly fee of about $650,000. Under the previous no-bid deal approved last year, ACS also stood to earn more money if the District issued more than 53,750 citations in any given month."

But where will it all end? Maybe we should really be safe and go after people using cell phone and not wearing seat belts, ummm, OK, they're already doing that in England. Or what if we mounted a camera on a street sweeper so we could fine those who didn't bother to move their cars so we could all have a nice clean gutter, ummm, sorry, they're already doing that one too in Lancaster, PA.

Well now this is getting ridiculous. Its not as if your city had one of these camera programs contracted out and it was so badly managed that it turned out the contractor was getting more money than the city. Eventually, the city reissued the contract but raised the cost of the violations to try and recoup the money they bungled under the first contract, yep, this has already happened as well in Winnipeg, Canada.

Regrettably, this list could go on and on, in fact there are at least 61 other news accounts on the day of this posting that more than adequately document that your personal privacy is no longer being sacrificed for safety, but to provide revenues for the local municipalities that use these camera pointing contractors. You may be thinking - what if there is a technical problem and the camera's aren't functioning properly, band together, class action suit? You silly monkey, the local governments and the courts wouldn't let such a thing happen. But they did.

Where to turn if this is starting to get under your skin or into your wallet? The largest group of motorists that can influence legislation is through AAA. Their legislative action center is a start. The other organization is the one mentioned in the beginning of this post, the ACLU who was one of the few voices of protest 5 years ago. Not always a group we feel comfortable turning to sometimes, but in 5 years look how far we've come.