The use of cameras to enforce speed limits and penalize running red lights is 30-year-old technology in Europe (which in itself speaks volumes about how the U.S. has fallen behind in technology). But, it has only more recently come to the U.S., where for the past several years, it seems to have raised strong opposition from some quarters.
Now it is Maryland's turn; the state has approved the use of cameras in some situations but a group deceptively calling itself Marylanders for Responsible Enforcement is trying to put the issue on a referendum, where they hope it can be stopped.
I have some difficulty imagining who would oppose these cameras. Leaving aside red-light-running, which is a particularly dangerous practice, let's look just at speeding. Of course, we all know that we exceed speed limits regularly; but we also assume that if we're pulled over we'll get a ticket, and in our hearts we know - if we're not drunken fools or teenagers - that excessive speed kills, just as the billboards say. So who opposes better enforcement?
The proposed law is not especially draconian. It would allow cameras only in school zones and work zones, and drivers would be ticketed only if they were clocked at 12 mph or more above the limit. That's 37 mph in an active school zone! Is that unreasonable?
The MfRE website offers a list of reasons to oppose, but many are unconvincing or based on incomplete information. For the most part, they boil down to vague concerns about "privacy," and the charge that the state isn't really interested in safety, but income.
The privacy argument is particularly ridiculous. Should anyone expect privacy while driving up and down public streets? If so, perhaps "privacy" also extends to other law-breaking. Will we soon see a hit-and-run driver who was filmed by a nearby ATM security camera arguing that his privacy was violated, and getting off scot-free? People who oppose cameras often say the alternative is to have more police on the streets to control speed. Having cops on every corner observing you evidently does not violate your privacy the way an inanimate camera does.
Perhaps the MfRE has a point when they complain that 90% of ticket proceeds will go to the contractor who runs the camers - that seems excessive. But really, I can't buy the income-versus-safety objection. Fines for law-breaking are standard practice; if governments use the proceeds to help fund government services, and keep taxes lower for those who aren't lawbreakers, we should all be applauding that.
All of which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that people opposing this are just drivers who are in the habit of speeding regularly without paying any penalty for it.
Comments