Safe Speed Forums

Monday, 28 By Viewpoints -28th March 2011 20:17
Highway speed cameras ineffective enforcement

Impersonal policing system less safe, cause unfair repercussions to drivers

A new controversy about the Interstate-95 speed cameras installed in the town of Ridgeland, S.C., has ignited like a firework.

After researching why the camera was installed and investigating other cases of speed camera traps, it is difficult for me to support the use of such a device.

Emily_Shipp-WEBThe idea is that once speed cameras are installed, accidents will drastically decrease because every driver going at least 10 mph above the speed limit will be photographed and mailed a fine, preventing speeding in the future.

This method of catching us seems drastic and inherently flawed. First of all, I don’t agree with the idea of mailing someone a ticket. Not only does it seem far too “Big Brother,” but when a driver is drunk driving 20 or 30 mph over the speed limit, what good will it do to mail a ticket later when the driver is still driving drunk down the highway?

I feel as though the element of public safety is lost in that moment of excessive speeding when potentially harmful drivers are not stopped. And if the driver isn’t drunk, then when pulled, at least he is given a chance to defend himself.

Also, many people caught speeding live outside of the state, since I-95 is a popular federal corridor for travelers headed north or south. When a ticket is received in the mail, the ticketed will most likely not show up in court to have his fee potentially reduced because it would be more cost-effective to pay the fee rather than to travel back and state his case. This is essentially selective law enforcement. And if there is any doubt that the driver’s picture does not match the one on the record pulled up for the license plate, the driver will not be fined. This methodology is cryptic and undoubtedly inefficient.

And where is the ticket money going? According to Mayor Gary Hodges of Ridgeland, “Of the $133 citation a driver can be issued for traveling 10 to 15 mph over the speed limit, Ridgeland will remit about $84 to the state and keep the remaining $49 ... The $49 will be divided evenly between the town and iTraffic.”

iTraffic, which makes cameras, is a for-profit firm run by a man named William Danzell, who established iTraffic after the bankruptcy of his previous photo enforcement enterprise, Nestor Traffic Systems. According to a journal on the politics of driving called The NewsPaper, “The new venture looks to target the estimated 1,000 vehicles that pass through the town’s 70-mph zone at 81 mph or more each day — enough to generate $40 million.”

In other words, this camera scheme is yet another reflection of privatization.

I’m all for keeping the roads safe, but take one look at the autobahn, on which cars travel at speeds of 140 mph and very rarely get into accidents, and it’s clear that bad drivers and manipulative capitalist ventures are the problem — not speeding.