Safe Speed Forums

Karl Bickel: Cops, Crime and Community
Photo Radar: Crash reduction tool or 21st century speed trap?
Originally published October 13, 2009

Whether the photo radar programs — measures that are currently being considered for many Maryland communities — are accepted as effective crash reduction tools or scorned as 21st century speed traps may be largely dependent on citizen involvement in the planning, implementation and oversight of these speed-reduction initiatives.
Much has been said about the revenue generating capabilities of both red light cameras and photo radar (speed camera) systems, casting doubt on the motives of local governments embracing their use. This is a justifiable concern, particularly in the face of an uncertain economic future and shrinking tax revenues for local jurisdictions like Frederick . As political leaders scramble to close gaps in local budgets, the possible revenue bonanzas generated from red light cameras and photo radar has the potential of clouding judgment.

Since the inception of Frederick ’s red light photo enforcement program, more than $2 million in fines has been generated. In Rockville (Montgomery County), one photo radar camera alone generated $88,000 in revenue in its fist month of operation. Over a period of several months, revenues from the Rockville camera dropped off significantly, but this one camera still generated $22,000 worth of speeding tickets in a single month.
Montgomery County is the only Maryland jurisdiction to currently be operating photo radar. Maryland’s new law, that took effect October 1, permitting jurisdictions throughout the state to implement photo radar programs, sets restrictions on their use. News stories have centered on how much potential revenue will be lost as a result of the restrictions; tickets issued when the speed limit is exceeded by 12 mph instead of the 11 mph threshold previously used in Montgomery County; and, limited hours of operation in school zones.

Nonetheless, Montgomery County is said to be planning to issue over 320,000 photo radar tickets in fiscal year 2010, generating revenues of over $13 million. This is precisely the kind of goal that raises community suspicions about the true nature of the program’s intent.

Local police need to change the focus of the conversation from the hefty revenues generated to lives saved, accidents prevented and their need to respond to citizens’ traffic complaints. The case for photo radar as a crash reduction tool needs to be made using a genuine public safety argument, not an argument based on windfall profits for the public coffers.
For there to be any chance of successful implementation and sustainability of a program that has garnered the level of controversy that photo radar has, you must have strong public support. Even more importantly, should such a controversial program be implemented without widespread public support, you will loose some measure of citizen trust and confidence in your police and local government.
Successful implementation of a photo radar program, where opposition can be anticipated, requires community involvement in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the program; involvement beyond simple participation in public hearings.
A committee, board or commission made up of public safety professionals and citizen stakeholders, operating with complete transparency, can provide the objectivity and gain the trust necessary to address the contentious issue of photo radar. Think of it as an additional way to put the community in community policing.

During the planning stages, such a working group could address important considerations like:
# Defining the goal or desired result of the program;
# Determining if the devices actually achieve the desired result or goal;
# Deciding where devices should be placed and why (supported by relevant data and/or traffic surveys);
# Determining how long the devices should stay in one place;
# Deciding what data should be collected and reported;
# Determining what will be done with the revenue generated;
# Deciding what program monitoring systems will be put in place; and,
# Determining what the frequency and detail of public reporting on traffic safety goals, goal achievement and revenue use would be.

Gaining public support through citizen stakeholders is of paramount importance if you are to realize successful program implementation and long-term sustainability. Sharing information, such as relevant data supporting and refuting all claims, with all stakeholders and interested parties pays dividends; while efforts to thwart citizen inquiry creates suspicion and mistrust.

Citizen involvement in the process begets community ownership. Photo radar program success or failure may hinge on the level of community ownership.
With active citizen involvement throughout the planning, implementation and oversight processes, the answer to the question as to whether photo radar is an effective crash reduction tool the community needs or a 21st century speed trap should become evident.
Please let me hear from you at kbickel@starpower.net, and as Sergeant Phil Esterhaus would say, “let’s be careful out there.”
— — —
Karl Bickel's column, "Cops, Crime and Community: For the police buff, the curious or concerned," runs bi-weekly.

About Karl W. Bickel
Karl started a career in law enforcement with a major metropolitan police department where he was a police cadet, patrol officer and detective.
He has since been a security consultant and private investigator, law enforcement specialist, an assistant professor of criminal justice, a law enforcement consultant, operations chief and second in command of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office and currently works for a federal agency providing support for state, local and tribal law enforcement.
Karl grew up in Montgomery County and has called Monrovia, in Frederick County, his home since 1980.
His email address is kbickel@starpower.net.