Photo-Enforced... An Ode to Traffic Cameras

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.

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!

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.

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.