{"id":15559,"date":"2022-02-16T12:04:44","date_gmt":"2022-02-16T17:04:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=15559"},"modified":"2022-02-16T12:04:44","modified_gmt":"2022-02-16T17:04:44","slug":"speed-cameras-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/autosector.com\/?p=15559","title":{"rendered":"Speed cameras making a comeback? How to win hearts and minds"},"content":{"rendered":"

Among the many things we didn\u2019t realize counted as infrastructure, we recently learned that the Biden administration\u2019s infrastructure law has money for local governments to install speed cameras<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Oh joy, you probably thought, speed cameras<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s part of a new initiative by the U.S. Department of Transportation<\/a> to reverse the rise in traffic fatalities. Why, when every automotive model year brings new safety systems, are we seeing increasing numbers of people die? Because speed kills, just as you were always told \u2014 it was a factor in a quarter of road deaths in 2019, and traffic fatalities have gotten worse<\/a> and worse<\/a> since then. Americans are driving faster<\/a>, a habit formed during pandemic lockdown. (And, just maybe, we are driving angrier and more selfishly<\/a>\u00a0in these angry times.)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot of research supporting the claim that photo-radar red-light and speed cameras are effective at saving lives. An aggregate of such studies indicates<\/a> they reduce speeds by up to 15%, have reduced the number of speeding<\/a> vehicles by up to 65%, have reduced accidents 8% to 49%, and have reduced fatal or serious-injury accidents 11%-44%.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But. The cameras are ever-controversial.<\/p>\n

A survey last month<\/a> commissioned by Erie Insurance (insurance<\/a> companies like the technology<\/a>) found that half of respondents are in favor of them, while a third are opposed. Yet half also think cameras are an invasion of privacy. And 61% think a speed camera should not issue a ticket unless a driver exceeds the posted limit by at least 10 mph.<\/p>\n

The main accusation you always hear from critics (and that you might have yourself): More than half those surveyed said the cameras\u2019 primary purpose is simply to generate revenue.<\/p>\n

Returning to the \u201cspeed kills\u201d maxim for a moment: 60% of the drivers surveyed admitted they had driven at least 20 mph over posted limits during Covid. (If that means over 90 mph on a highway posted at 70, do you suppose 60% of the public would be particularly skilled at that? And 45 in a 25 isn\u2019t a good look either.)<\/p>\n

So to recap: We admit we\u2019re excessively speeding. We realize it\u2019s a problem that cameras can address. But we feel oppressed by them and believe they\u2019re mostly intended to fleece us.<\/p>\n

Under surveillance<\/strong><\/h3>\n

True, there\u2019s something about the cold impersonal nature of a speed camera that rankles \u2014 you\u2019re driving along, then a couple of weeks later you get a ticket in the mail with a photo of yourself looking unassumingly stupid behind the wheel. It feels like Big Brother. Never mind we\u2019re already under constant surveillance by license plate readers and CCTV. Elon Musk<\/a> recently seemed surprised and annoyed to learn that public data from the FAA could be used to track his private jet<\/a>. Which is rich, coming from a guy whose company tracks what its customers do<\/a> behind the wheel. Break wind in your car, and Tesla<\/a> HQ can probably sniff it out.<\/p>\n

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety<\/a>, in arguing for speed cameras, reasons that 174 communities currently use them<\/a>. But IIHS<\/a> doesn\u2019t mention that a decade ago, 540<\/a> communities gave them a try, before hundreds dropped them. Residents hated the things, plus sometimes the technology made mistakes<\/a>. IIHS says legislation permitting cameras is under consideration anew in eight states \u2014 yet another eight states have banned them. In Missouri, they were ruled an unconstitutional invasion of privacy by the state Supreme Court<\/a>, and a judge in Ohio called them a \u201cscam.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

In other words, a lot of people can relate to this Aussie who went to great lengths to flip off a speed camera<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An Autoblog<\/em> story<\/a> eight years ago outlines some of the rotten government behavior that soured people on the technology: Cameras hidden by foliage, some fiddling with the duration of yellow lights in Chicago to boost camera revenue by millions of dollars, and a refusal by Nassau County, N.Y., to reveal camera locations. Then there’s the Brooklyn camera parked at an abrupt speed-zone change that issued 1,551 tickets in one day<\/a>. Said an AAA<\/a> spokesman: “When it’s done right, lives are saved. When it’s not, people feel very angry about it.”<\/p>\n

This camera-animosity roundup<\/a> from four years ago quotes Paul Fisher, a University of Arizona traffic researcher: “People seem to really not like red-light cameras. The referendums almost always lead to removal.”<\/p>\n

The kind of camera matters<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If this new DOT<\/a> money triggers a comeback for cameras, then local governments need to do it right this time. Let’s make some distinctions.<\/p>\n