The first freeway in the country to have photo radar was a stretch of the Loop 101 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Since then, it's brought in so much money they've decided to put the cameras all over the greater Phoenix area. Coincidentally, one of the new government cash machines is setup on my stretch of the Loop 101, a half hour away from the first freeway photo radar. As a self-appointed expert (AKA "dick") on this and legal matters relating to this, I decided to write up some thoughts on the subject.
Q: Do they make the roads safer?
A: There are no valid statistics to prove their efficacy at increasing safety.
The city did some studies on the areas where they'd setup radar, and found that fatal accidents fell dramatically in the time period following the installation (40% in some areas). I looked at the stats, and as a person whose job depends on being able to call bullshit on stats, I noticed a few things lacking.
For one, we all know there are fewer drivers on the road. Gas consumption is down dramatically compared to 2007. Since the cameras aren't setup to count the number of cars that pass them, we don't have any proof that the accident per unit traffic is down. Also, people could be avoiding the cameras in favor of other routes without cameras.
Oh, one other small thing: What's the most important thing in any experiment? A control. These stats were conveniently lacking in accident information on streets and highways without the cameras in the same time period. Without a control, these stats are meaningless.
-------------------
Q: Is it a case of "big brother"?
A: In my opinion, no.
I really hate when people use this term this way. You have no right to privacy on a public road, and speed laws are there for a reason: to keep our streets safe. Speed laws are just and abiding by them is the condition of having a license. Therefore, if the taxpayers didn't mind this kind of enforcement, there's nothing legally or morally wrong with doing things this way.
-------------------
Q: Isn't it just another way to get revenue?
A: Yes, but that's a stupid argument to get rid of them.
Of course revenue is the primary reason these things got thrown up now and not years ago when our state budget was fine. However, that argument is not really a good one if indeed these actually do increase public safety. You have to weigh the cost of this safety Vs the loss we have as partial stakeholders of the road (oh yeah, you own that road, remember?)
-------------------
Q: Even if they do decrease accidents in some small way, are they a good idea?
A: In my opinion, it's not worth it.
Most of the time, speeding is not actually unsafe. Therefore, most police officers make the decision to ignore, give a warning, and only in extreme cases do they give tickets.
Say you're going 85 in an 80MPH highway at 1AM traveling across south Texas trying to get to Arizona. There's not a car or a tail light in sight. For that matter, you haven't even seen another car for a hundred miles. It's 80 degrees outside, conditions are perfect, and you can't see anything but the lines on the road for probably a mile in front of your car. Suddenly, a cop pulls out of the bushes by the side of the road, turns on his rollers, pulls you over, and gives you a $180 ticket for 5 over. That cop is the epitome of "asshole." When people joke about cops being "revenue agents," this is what they mean. [Side note: this actually happened to my ex girlfriend driving home from Army bootcamp in San Antonio.]
Why is that cop an asshole? Because he was hurting other people who were not doing anything wrong. They were not endangering anyone by breaking the law, and nobody in their right mind would think that they were.
Everyone has one of these stories, but these are the exception to the rule. Most cops would take into account other factors when writing a ticket, such as asking the ever-important question "Does this person need to slow down to save lives?" Photo radar does not make this judgment. Photo radar is basically like a cop who is constantly stuck in "asshole" mode.
A person weaving in and out of rush-hour traffic going 70 in a 65, when most others are going 50 could be pulled over by a cop for reckless driving. He might not be ticketed, but he would cease his dangerous behavior. A radar camera would not identify this, nor would I trust it to.
Like I said, these are our roads. Our gas taxes paid for them. We own them. So the question is, what are we willing to give up in order to gain a little more safety? Is it really worth it to shackle down our lives and eliminate risk to the point where life is some uptight struggle to stay 'within the lines' ?
There are other safety measures we could take: No cell phone use while driving, no cars with governors over 80MPH, zero tolerance alcohol, all cars must have the same bumper level (especially those stupid looking SUVs on blocks), etc.
These are our roads, we can be as assholish as we like in order to keep them safe. All the things I mentioned would probably save some lives, but is it worth it?
-----
Over the last few days, all the photo radars in Pinal county, AZ have been ordered to be removed. Phoenix may very well be next, if legislators vote that way in the following few days (a bill was just introduced today to have them removed from freeways statewide). (63,392)
Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:38 pm In that connection, let us turn back the clock a bit. In the year 1369, Edward III, one of England's truly great monarchs, issued the following order:
"Cause public proclamation to be made, that everyone strong in body at leisure time on holidays use in his recreation the bow and arrow and learn and exercise the art of shooting - forbidding all and singular on our behalf that they do not after any manner apply themselves to the throwing of stones, wood, iron, handball, football, bandyball, cambuck, or cock fighting; nor to other such like vain plays which have no profit in them, under pain of imprisonment."
Occupation: Daniel is Medical Resident from the southwest US. Prior to medicine, he worked in IT as a consultant, programmer, web designer/developer, and technician.
Share
