January 30, 2007
Photo-Enforced... An Ode to Traffic Cameras
They see us when we're speeding, they know when we run lights, they know when we park illegally, but we won't pay up without a fight!
Last week, we wrote about the transit implications of Adrian Fenty's "200 Goals in 100 Days." The mayor promised a lot of things, but the point everyone jumped on in the comments was his pledge to install traffic cameras on street sweepers. The cameras would photo-enforce the parking regulations that keep one side of most streets clear for cleaning one morning a week, using license plate recognition technology to automatically issue tickets to cars parked illegally on street sweeping day. The verdict seemed to be that people were none too pleased with the city's latest foray into photo-enforcement of parking laws.
Since everyone seemed so uppity about the issue, we thought we'd offer our own thoughts on them, as well as the city's other pesky traffic cameras (full disclosure: we've found ourselves in the crosshairs of a traffic camera several times). Since brevity is the soul of wit, we'll sum up our position in two words: So what?!?
For a slightly more verbose explanation, keep reading.
Photo by takomabibelot
The main complaint about photo-enforcement of parking restrictions can be summed up in three comments, as follows:
1) Arrrrggghhh! Just another way for the city to suck money out of the pockets of residents. If I had ever seen a street sweeper in my neighborhood I might be worried about this.From our perspective, the third comment hits the nail on the head. The parking regulations are there for a reason, and a valid one that most people would support – to keep our streets clean. It certainly is frustrating to go through the hassle of complying with the rules, only to have the sweepers not show up. It does not change either the parking policies themselves or the sound basis on which they are written. If parking enforcement rolls down the street at 9:01 with not a sweeper in sight, you are still parked illegally.2) The dynamic from my window: The streets are marked for sweeping, but the sweeper never comes. A few residents complain, but to no avail. So the residents then start ignoring the signs. And then the residents start getting ticketed. Then, lo and behold, upon receipt of tickets, many many many residents complain that the streets are not swept but they are being ticketed anyway. Then, DPW sends around a street-sweeper -- but not on the day it's scheduled. So cars are parked by the curb and it does no good. Repeat this bit of drama every month for years...
3) The parking rules exist and are in effect whether the street sweeper comes by or not. Basing your right to break parking rules because somebody else is not doing their job is pretty much an assy move. Next thing you know, churchgoers will think they should have the right to double and triple park on Sunday mornings!
Now, parking cameras on street sweepers are somewhat different than red light or speed cameras. But they share similar qualities that bring up a larger issue: is the use of traffic cameras in general justified?
For a bit of history, red light cameras were first installed in the District in 1999, and speed cameras followed soon after in 2001. According to the Metro Police web site, since launching the programs, the District has mailed out 2.14 million speeding tickets and issued 642,500 red light violations. District police have praised the cameras as providing vital traffic enforcement, without taking officers away from more important policing duties. They also claim a significant public safety benefit, citing a 69.8 percent decline in red light violations and a 20-30 percent decrease in speeding violations, resulting in 40 percent less speed-related traffic accidents Though such statistics have been disputed, Earl Hardy, an expert on speeding and its role in traffic safety for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, stated in a Washington Post chat, "...studies show that photo-radar is an effective tool" in reducing speed-related accidents. Photo-enforcement has also been a cash cow for the District; over the life of the program, speed cameras have brought in $123.6 million in fines, and red-light tickets have yielded $39.4 million.
Criticism has been aimed at the cameras from several directions: civil libertarians don't like the nanny-state, Big Brother feel of it all; some lawyers have claimed the cameras are unconstitutional, since those alleged violators cannot confront their "accuser"; others have pointed out the fallibility of the equipment. The main complaint, however, and a long-running crusade of the Washington Times, seems to be that the cameras are simply revenue generators -- a ploy to suck dollars out of hapless D.C. residents.
We'll let the courts settle the constitutionality of the cameras. As for the other gripes, we just can't agree. There is a definite 1984-ness to photo-enforcement. However, the cameras are triggered only when a law is broken, unlike the District's crime surveillance cameras. So Big Brother is only watching when you do something wrong, which is hardly an invasion of privacy. Also, it's tough to refute the counter-argument that cameras free cops up for more important police-work, making us safer. How many times has someone been pulled over for running a red light and thought, "Don't these guys have something better to do?". Well, yes, they do. By outsourcing traffic duty to cameras, not only are our streets potentially safer from bad drivers, we also benefit from more police presence.
While it is true that cops typically leave parking enforcement to the folks over at DPW, replacing those meter-readers with cameras that don't get salaries or benefits would help the District from a financial standpoint. Mounting cameras on street sweepers would also keep cars from being ticketed if streets are not swept. Of course, this assumes that parking enforcement on street cleaning day would only be done by camera. If the city continued to deploy meter-readers as well, we concede the gripe.
As for the idea that cameras are only out there to generate revenue (Tony Williams had even admitted as much), again we ask, "So what?". Raising revenue from people who break the law is nothing new in government. Large fines are typical penalties for many crimes, including dozens of traffic offenses. With websites like Photoenforced.com and even the District's own website listing the exact location of both speed and red light cameras, this isn't exactly entrapment. It should not make any difference whether a cop or a computer is writing the ticket, as long as the computer is regularly calibrated and tested for accuracy. We trust computers to do just about everything else for us. Aside from the fact that it sucks to get a ticket, how is this different?
The people caught on traffic cameras are running red lights and speeding. Why is it a problem to photo-enforce parking laws as well? If you want to dispute the laws themselves, that's something else. However, unless you are prepared to pony up more in city taxes, it seems fine to let the District generate revenue from those who just can't resist the urge to break the law.
|
As an urban pedestrian, cyclist, and parent, I'm all for red-light and speeding cameras everywhere. I believe the program will pay for itself many times over in many ways.
Also, as the person who submitted featured comment #2, I wasn't complaining about parking restrictions but, rather, about the irregularity or complete lack of reciprocal service delivery. I don't complain about parking because I haven't owned a car in over 15 years. I complain ALOT about poor city services. And reckless drivers.
Do they do street sweeping near churches on Sunday? I'm just asking.
Well, I'm a pedestrian and cyclist too and I think much of this is crap. I can't remember the last time I saw traffic enforced in this city. It may stop SOME people from running red lights but it does not keep them off their cell phones, teach them to signal when turning or changing lanes, and I have serious doubts it curbs speeding. Red lights are a small part of the picture. When there's less attention by street cops to these issues, more laws get broken.
Well, I'm a pedestrian and cyclist too and I think much of this is crap. I can't remember the last time I saw traffic enforced in this city. It may stop SOME people from running red lights but it does not keep them off their cell phones, teach them to signal when turning or changing lanes, and I have serious doubts it curbs speeding. Red lights are a small part of the picture. When there's less attention by street cops to these issues, more laws get broken.
Well, I'm a pedestrian and cyclist too and I think much of this is crap. I can't remember the last time I saw traffic enforced in this city. It may stop SOME people from running red lights but it does not keep them off their cell phones, teach them to signal when turning or changing lanes, and I have serious doubts it curbs speeding. Red lights are a small part of the picture. When there's less attention by street cops to these issues, more laws get broken.
Hmmm...I wonder if the perception that street sweepers never come around could be related to the fact that 3-4 months out of the year, they don't:
www.dpw.dc.gov/dpw/cwp/view,a,1201,q,637087,dpwNav_GID,1479,.asp
Nope. DPW is pretty good about getting the word out. Even if they weren't, lots of other people have an interest in not fielding the complaints that would inevitably arise from mass-ticketing.
The perception has more to do with the reality of DC Gov street crews not doing the work they're assigned and paid for.
I don't mind the cameras either. I welcome them mounted on street sweepers! Contrary to what others have reported, on my street the street sweeper comes by as scheduled and does a pretty good job of keeping the street clean. Unfortunately, some numbskull always seems to leave their car parked in front of MY place, and the street sweeper has to go around it, thus leaving the street dirty right in front of my door. It's very annoying, and I'd love to see the dude getting a photo-ticket.
If one weighs the economic impact of dirty neighborhood streets against the economic value of the time spent moving cars around to avoid fines added to the fines, one sees little gained for the citizenry of the District.
It is a fine levied on those well off enough to own a car, but not well off enough to afford off-street parking. Shouldn't part of the fine be levied against the fast food establishments whose trash litters the ground? Or the Washington Post whose free "express" paper is handed out every day? How many public dollars are spent picking up the express. I very much appreciate there being a better informed electorate because of the paper, but the post should be paying DPS and Metro to pick the things up--we shouldn't.
Perhaps such parking laws are a boon for making people get broken down cars off the street, but surely a monthly street cleaning rather than weekly would accomplish the same goal.
Street sweeping fines place the economic burden for a clean federal city on the backs of the working class residents rather than on the landed gentry, the throngs of tourists, the businesses which import the waste paper for sale as either fast food packaging or advertising space(the Washington Post Express).
Are dirty streets the fault of people who drive cars? Why are motorists in high density areas bearing this cost? I don't see people in cars littering, in fact in Columbia Heights, I don't see many people littering at all-even the guys who are drunk by noon or the groups of teens.
In my experience at least, most litter is caused by overflowing trashcans on major streets. The wind blows the lighter trash on top into the neighborhoods. DC public works is at fault in my neighborhood. Why should anyone pay 2 or 3 times for their mistakes-once for them to not pick up the trash, a second time for them to not sweep the streets, and a third time in the form of tickets?
The red light and street sweeping cams don't bother me as much, but the speeding cameras are a sham. Just watch how traffic speeds off New York Ave on to I-395 only to slam on the brakes for after passing under K St. for the camera and then speed up again once safely under H St.
Is there some possibility having the cameras could actually increase the reliability of the street sweepers? Some manager could be reviewing the (presumably) time-and-location-stamped images from the sweeper and notice that sweeper #3 isn't taking pictures in the right place at the right time.
Dan, I think that may be one of the reasons some people support this.
who is this "we?" is this colin peppard's opinion or is there some group DCist meeting to discuss the state of surveillance in the district? i know you foolishly use the "we" and i seem to remember there being some debate on it at some point, but is this the "official DCist stance on surveillance in the District" or just Peppard's view on this?
i don't have the time to really go through and offer a detail refutation of this, but i would like to offer my strong disagreement, not only with the odd reactionary arguments that peppard makes, but with the poor way this article is written.
so, just a few points
"Big Brother is only watching when you do something wrong, which is hardly an invasion of privacy."
If you are interested in how the system operates
i actually can't even, i am not sure if this is meant to be a shock statement, or if this is heartfelt? If it is heartfelt, i invite the writer to read any of the volumes of privacy writing in this area, perhaps starting with GWU's own Jeffrey Rosen. This is a nonstarter as an argument. It is a variation on the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide" which is really not taken seriously by anyone other than the people who say it and think they are making a valid logical argument. It is simply not taken as a serious statement by anyone who actually deals with this subject in a serious, academic, or policy analytical manner.
"By outsourcing traffic duty to cameras, not only are our streets potentially safer from bad drivers, we also benefit from more police presence."
Is this something that was deduced through the internal logic of mr. peppard? I don't mean that as a joke, is it just some sort of guess at how the world work? This is a premise that is not based in an fact at all. I suppose on the surface it makes sense but that is not at all how things of this magnitude work.
Although this is a short article is it just filled with errors and leaps of logic.
Finally, regarding the money making aspect of the speed cameras in dc, there is a great article that i am sure can be found online via a search from the Weekly Standard from a few years ago that breaks down how the system works. In the end, the actual police force has very little to do with the process at all, it is all outsourced to a third party who create the software, install the cameras and send you the bill.
that may not be, i don't know what the argument was for this, but there is something in business call the "yuck factor," and this hits that right on the head.
Finally, dcist, you are a decent place to find items of interest, and a good placeholder for local items, and i think it is good that you are attempting to create your own content, but please, do not offer horribly written, poorly thought out garbage as indicative of what your whole site thinks.
Thank you.
& no offense meant to your mr. peppard.
who is this "we?" is this colin peppard's opinion or is there some group DCist meeting to discuss the state of surveillance in the district? i know you foolishly use the "we" and i seem to remember there being some debate on it at some point, but is this the "official DCist stance on surveillance in the District" or just Peppard's view on this?
i don't have the time to really go through and offer a detail refutation of this, but i would like to offer my strong disagreement, not only with the odd reactionary arguments that peppard makes, but with the poor way this article is written.
so, just a few points
"Big Brother is only watching when you do something wrong, which is hardly an invasion of privacy."
If you are interested in how the system operates
i actually can't even, i am not sure if this is meant to be a shock statement, or if this is heartfelt? If it is heartfelt, i invite the writer to read any of the volumes of privacy writing in this area, perhaps starting with GWU's own Jeffrey Rosen. This is a nonstarter as an argument. It is a variation on the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide" which is really not taken seriously by anyone other than the people who say it and think they are making a valid logical argument. It is simply not taken as a serious statement by anyone who actually deals with this subject in a serious, academic, or policy analytical manner.
"By outsourcing traffic duty to cameras, not only are our streets potentially safer from bad drivers, we also benefit from more police presence."
Is this something that was deduced through the internal logic of mr. peppard? I don't mean that as a joke, is it just some sort of guess at how the world work? This is a premise that is not based in an fact at all. I suppose on the surface it makes sense but that is not at all how things of this magnitude work.
Although this is a short article is it just filled with errors and leaps of logic.
Finally, regarding the money making aspect of the speed cameras in dc, there is a great article that i am sure can be found online via a search from the Weekly Standard from a few years ago that breaks down how the system works. In the end, the actual police force has very little to do with the process at all, it is all outsourced to a third party who create the software, install the cameras and send you the bill.
that may not be, i don't know what the argument was for this, but there is something in business call the "yuck factor," and this hits that right on the head.
Finally, dcist, you are a decent place to find items of interest, and a good placeholder for local items, and i think it is good that you are attempting to create your own content, but please, do not offer horribly written, poorly thought out garbage as indicative of what your whole site thinks.
Thank you.
& no offense meant to your mr. peppard.
but please, do not offer horribly written, poorly thought out garbage as indicative of what your whole site thinks.
Damn Jake! Just tell us how your really feel, don't hold back.
What I wanna know is where is all this "build a better mouse trap" efficiency and thoroughness used to generate and collect traffic/parking enforcement revenues with regard to schools, trash pickup, snow removal, and all the other area where DC gov't falls short?
Mark said "As an urban pedestrian, cyclist, and parent, I'm all for red-light and speeding cameras everywhere. "
I agree with Mark. Put a camera on every street corner. Hell, put a camera in every living room and bedroom in America. Only the law breakers need worry.
Whoa, there jake! No offense taken, but please... Pot? Kettle? Black? Are you really accusing me of poor writing when you can't even be bothered in your "rebuttal" to consistently use correct capitalization, punctuation, and grammar? Thanks, but no thanks.
I love criticism that is well thought out. Yours is anything but. Still, to answer a few of your questions:
1) We is me. Almost all posts on DCist and other -ist sites are written in the first person plural. If you want to argue with the logic of that, send an email to the editors, but the fact remains that it is the editorial standard here.
2) You never explain how my thoughts are either odd or reactionary. Are they odd because they have not been offered before? Because most people don't agree with them? I'm not sure either of those applies. Please explain. As for reactionary, I would love to hear an explanation of that, too.
3) Regarding privacy, I have read many Rosen's arguments, which primarily address true surveillance cameras. Such cameras are on all the time and used to actively photograph ALL the individuals in an area. Traffic cameras only turn on when a car speeds or runs a light, tripping the radar. Parking cameras only turn on when the operator flips a switch. This is not a case of, "If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide," but rather, "If you don't do anything wrong, you will never be photographed." I see little difference between a cop and a properly functioning computer operating a radar gun. If you see one, please explain.
4) Yes, my thought that less cops on traffic duty means more cops free for other beats. While the logic used at Metro Police HQ might not lead to such a situation, why is it unreasonable to think that automating certain jobs would free up workers for other jobs?
5) Finally, money from traffic fines goes into city coffers. Even if a third party writes the software, installs the cameras, and sends the bill, the money you pay still goes to the city. If the Weekly Standard (or perhaps another publication with a less ideological bent) argues otherwise, feel free to email me a link.
Tim Wayne:
Not to foment some lame armchair conlaw argument, by SCOTUS has clearly determined you have no right to privacy in such public spaces as, say, public roads. There's an obvious distinction between such and, as you put it, living rooms and bedrooms.
There are two main reasons to be against this IMO. One is that once people can make money off of red light runners, they do what they can to make people run red lights. Like this:
Union City, CA Caught Trapping Motorists With Short Yellow
I didn't add a link so that the comment would be accepted, but you can find it easily.
The other problem is in using scofflaws to generate income. It becomes a regressive tax, when it's supposed to be a deterrent. Change the law so that a ticket fine is a percentage of income and it becomes fair. Otherwise it's just an unfair tax.
I don't believe: 1- this would actually be a tax. There is a difference between taxes and penalties. But, even if you choose to mis-term it a tax, it would not necessarily be a regressive tax, unless there is a positive correlation between income and compliance with traffic laws. I know of no such correlation. 2- the use of a straw argument "this will be abused" is likely to be effective. There's probably nothing in the world that can't be abused.
A tax is " A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government." If a purpose of this program is provide revenue (if it is revenue positive) than it's a tax. If it's revenue negative it's spending. Perhaps you see a third group - I do not. It is a penalty that serves as a tax. There need be no correlation between income and compliance for it to be regressive. Assuming traffic violations are evenly distributed over the income spectrum, the top 10% of earners and the bottom 10% would get the same number of tickets and pay the same amount, but the percentage of their income they pay would be inversely related to their income. That's regressive. I'm not sure what a straw argument is, but it's pretty easy to see how this could be abused. Money is a powerful incentive and if increasing traffic violations increases revenue, that serves as quite an incentive. As I pointed it, it's been abused before.
No argument from me that the penalty structure wouldn't exactly follow a "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" distribution.
But the focus on the penalty side seems misplaced. Rather, focus on the nominal purpose- to increase compliance with existing traffic laws. How would mechanizing enforcement to increase efficiency in achieving that goal conceptually be a bad thing? Should the IRS forgo the use of computerized audits of tax returns in favor of agent-conducted audits?
I just see this as a question of efficiency. I'm familiar with the aphorism "every inefficiency has its constituency", but that constituency isn't me. I'm more about concerned about public safety than I am about someone having to pay a fine if they break the law.
If the stated purpose weren't revenue generation I would have less of a problem. If, for example, violators got points - running the risk of losing their license - but with no fine, I'd be 100% in.
That's an attractive but impossible idea. Without an officer present to certify who was driving at the time of infraction, no points can be assigned to anyone's license. For that reason, the mechanized enforcement method only allows for fines to be assessed to the person in whose name the car is registered. It's not perfect, but what is? And, of course, there's another aphorism about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Thank you so much for the info regarding this product. I'll share this to my friends
so that they could get some infos. With this also, i would like
to share great ideas where dmc lumix lx2 panasonic
is related to and lots of great products. Thanks again!