Opinion: Guest column
Traffic cameras needed, fast
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Laura Brennan:
- WFC stands in way of gay rights progress (April 15, 2009)
- WUD correct to 'miff' Mifflin bash (April 6, 2009)
- Mistele's rhetoric unworthy of county executive (March 30, 2009)
- Madison's public schools must think about nutrition (March 9, 2009)
- Traffic cameras needed, fast (March 2, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
As part of his two-year budget plan, Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed re-introducing photo traffic enforcement to Wisconsin. The change would be aimed at drivers that run red lights and speed through work zones and would allow local agencies to install cameras and ticket violators through the mail. The use of photo enforcement was outlawed in 1995, with lawmakers stating the practice was a breach of privacy.
I had mixed feelings about this proposal. Ticketing speeders when there is no officer present almost feels unethical. Although I suppose it’s “fair,” as you are indeed breaking the law when you speed, the only person who should be able to reprimand you should be an officer of the law, not a piece of equipment. It’s sort of like that old saying, if a tree falls in the forest…
Doyle’s proposal, however, only singles out two specific violations — running a red light and speeding in a work zone. Although I can only vouch for myself, I’m sure many others have done both of these, particularly speeding through work zones.
It’s never malicious — we always have a reason for it, right? We’re running late for work, really have to use the bathroom (hey, it happens), or just need to get somewhere quickly. Every time I make the trip south on 39/90, the 12 or so miles of 45 mph construction zone just after Beloit are filled with drivers pushing 50, 60 or even 70 mph.
The reality is, even though speeding through work zones is something many of us do, it’s not one of those excusable “everyone else does it” slipups. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the annual number of people killed in motor vehicle crashes in work zones over the last decade has increased 45 percent, up to 1,010 in 2006.
On average, from 2002-06, about 15 percent of the fatalities resulting from crashes in work zones were pedestrians, meaning mostly workers. The FHA says the United States is averaging one work zone fatality every 8.7 hours — almost three a day — and one work zone injury every nine minutes, or 160 a day.
These statistics are inexcusable, and can be drastically reduced or even prevented with a stricter enforcement of work zone speed limits. Highway workers are already putting their lives in danger so we can have a less-congested commute. They should not be further exposed to risk by drivers with a brazen disregard for the law.
Doyle’s proposal also includes photo enforcement of drivers that run red lights. The jury is still out on this one, as the issue is a little more complicated. It could pose problems, such as discrepancies over yellow vs. red, or possible mistakes made by cameras firing too quickly. While 800 people die and an estimated 200,000 or more are injured due to running red lights each year, according to SmartMotorist.com, studies by the University of South Florida claim that red light cameras actually increase injuries and death.
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, the insurance industry-funded leading advocate for these cameras, claims they can reduce crashes by up to 40 percent. Those opposing the cameras insist, however, such cameras are only revenue-generators and some communities are even shortening yellow lights to increase revenue. Shorter yellow lights, as well as more motorists abruptly stopping to avoid tickets, opponents claim, cause more injuries and deaths than they prevent.
While I imagine very few would argue motorists should have the right to run red lights free of penalty, the possibility of red light cameras should be researched further if there is evidence that they could cause more harm than good. The aforementioned breach of privacy issue, however, is an unreasonable and inane point against photo enforcement. If a motorist doesn’t want someone to see what they’re doing in their car, then maybe it doesn’t belong in the car in the first place.
It goes without saying that no one likes getting a ticket, but it’s time we take a stricter approach to the blatant disregard of two very important traffic laws. This could be especially useful on the UW campus, where students are constantly in danger of drivers running red lights.
Doyle’s proposal is a good one, and although it might require more research on safety, it has the potential to both promote safer roads for motorists and pedestrians, as well as generate some much-needed revenue for the state.
Laura Brennan (lbrennan@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in communicative disorders.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Not a bad article on photo enforcement, but I don't see you can conlude that the proposal is a "good one" until the additional research is you recommend has concluded.
A few points though...
I'm not sure what stats you used, but the pedestrian deaths in work zones are not necessarily associated with normal traffic. Many of those accidents and deaths are caused by construction equipment & vehicles. Much of the data that is available does not distinguish whether the cause is traffic going through the worksite or construction equipment/worker related.
I'm glad you mentioned red light cameras increasing accidents. But with speed and red light cameras, officials are too quick to try enforcement instead of engineering. Many engineering measures are affordable and very effective - like adjusting light timing. I would suggest that cameras should only be used as a last resort when all engineering solutions have failed. It's not surprise that officials would rather make money than actually attempt to fix what's wrong and achieve compliance naturally.
FWIW, even speed cameras have been shown to increase accidents. A sheriff in Pinal County, Arizona recently removed speed cameras because accidents increased 16% and fatalities doubled (http://www.azfamily.com/video/3tvextra-index.html?nvid=324071&shu=1).
Your view on the privacy argument is very shallow. For a better view of the true privacy argument, please read http://PhotoRadarScam.com/privacy.php.
You also have glossed over many serious issues with automated enforcement, such as machine malfunctions (and the cost to innocent drivers), outsourcing law enforcement to third parties (many of whom have proven they can't be trusted), due process concerns, and constitutional issues.
Go fuck yourself. Neither of the laws are important per say and imposing draconian enforcement measures only increases the problem.
7:01:
ahh life WOULD be so easy if using profanity were a viable rebuttal. but its not, so grow up, be mature and try sticking to an argument that actually addresses your opposing view points.
Per say? You're better off sticking to vulgarities.
Just put a GPS black box in every car (which can't be driven without the appropriate RFID chip in your forehead) and have it keep track of your speed/location and transmit same to central billing if you violate the law. You could also be idetified and questioned if you drive in the vicinity of a crime.
Fits right in with taxation based on miles driven - different rates could even be charged depending on the road used!
Won't it be wonderful. Big Brother will know your every move.
The future just ain't what it used to be!
@7:01
brush up on yer Latin
I see the words "ABUSE" and "CORRUPTION" written all over these two measures (photo radar and intersection cameras). When will the average citizenry wake up that the government (sponsored by private radar/camera and insurance industries) is doing nothing else but continuously attempt to screw them out of their money?