These traffic speed cameras are common in Washington. In Montgomery County, income from their use has fallen as drivers slowed down. (Baltimore Sun file photo by Elizabeth Malby / July 31, 2007) |
E-mail
Print
A reader named John Dusch sent along an article from the Gazette in Prince George's County on speed cameras, thinking I'd be interested. I was.
It seems the Prince George's County Council has approved plans for speed cameras and has designated the county Revenue Authority to determine the 50 school sites where they will be deployed.
The Revenue Authority? What are these people thinking?
Regular readers of this column are well aware that I have no objections to speed cameras and would cheer if they were installed on every road in the state. But to maintain the integrity and the core purpose of the program - safety - decisions on where to post such cameras should be kept strictly separate from revenue considerations.
Camera location is a matter for the police department, the transportation department, even the health department, but not the revenue arm of local government. The county's decision reflects badly not just on its own program but on others around the state.
Opponents of speed cameras were quick to seize on the decision as validation of their cherished belief that money - not safety - is at the heart of such programs.
"I applaud the honesty of PG County in finally admitting that it's a revenue grab and little if anything more than that.
"I'd prefer it if the counties just admitted what they wanted from these things and went on their way. No more cloak-and-dagger or lying. Just tell me straight up that you want the money," wrote one visitor to the Getting There blog.
Fred Mirmiran, founding chairman of the Maryland Highway Safety Foundation and a speed camera proponent, expressed dismay at the decision.
"This sends the wrong message," he said. "It's not part of revenue. It's part of enforcement."
Correct. And if the program works as well as it does in Montgomery County, it should be a diminishing source of revenue over time as motorists slow down. Local governments that are seduced by its revenue-generating potential will inevitably find it an unreliable revenue stream.
My preferred way of spending the money government takes in from speed camera fines would be to convert it all into cash and hold a big bonfire in a public park on the Fourth of July. That would be a wonderful way to drive home the point that the underlying purpose of the program is to take money from the pockets of speeders - as a gentle way of inducing them to stop putting others' lives at risk - rather than to put it into government coffers.
Unfortunately, that idea would probably run afoul of environmental regulators in addition to being a political nonstarter.
The fallback would be to channel the money from fines into stepped-up enforcement, including additional cameras, or for small one-time capital projects that improve highway safety.
But entrusting the decisions on how to run the program to the local counterpart to the Internal Revenue Service hardly generates confidence. In Prince George's, that agency has already assigned the program to its parking director, who according to the Gazette has decided not to use the cameras in work zones because they're too temporary.
Hey, Mr. Parking Dude, that's one of the main reasons for passing the state law authorizing speed cameras - to protect highway workers. Some of these county road projects can last for months. Leaving the county's own workers out of the program smells like a revenue-driven decision. That may be practical thinking for a meter czar, but as public policy it stinks.
The council should rethink this extremely harmful decision. If they don't, elected officials from Baltimore City and the other counties that have shown more sense in setting up their speed camera programs ought to stage an intervention to get through to Prince George's council members when the Maryland Association of Counties holds its winter conference in January.
Just keep referring to Prince George's County as "P.G." to their faces until they see the error of their ways.
It seems the Prince George's County Council has approved plans for speed cameras and has designated the county Revenue Authority to determine the 50 school sites where they will be deployed.
The Revenue Authority? What are these people thinking?
Regular readers of this column are well aware that I have no objections to speed cameras and would cheer if they were installed on every road in the state. But to maintain the integrity and the core purpose of the program - safety - decisions on where to post such cameras should be kept strictly separate from revenue considerations.
Camera location is a matter for the police department, the transportation department, even the health department, but not the revenue arm of local government. The county's decision reflects badly not just on its own program but on others around the state.
Opponents of speed cameras were quick to seize on the decision as validation of their cherished belief that money - not safety - is at the heart of such programs.
"I applaud the honesty of PG County in finally admitting that it's a revenue grab and little if anything more than that.
"I'd prefer it if the counties just admitted what they wanted from these things and went on their way. No more cloak-and-dagger or lying. Just tell me straight up that you want the money," wrote one visitor to the Getting There blog.
Fred Mirmiran, founding chairman of the Maryland Highway Safety Foundation and a speed camera proponent, expressed dismay at the decision.
"This sends the wrong message," he said. "It's not part of revenue. It's part of enforcement."
Correct. And if the program works as well as it does in Montgomery County, it should be a diminishing source of revenue over time as motorists slow down. Local governments that are seduced by its revenue-generating potential will inevitably find it an unreliable revenue stream.
My preferred way of spending the money government takes in from speed camera fines would be to convert it all into cash and hold a big bonfire in a public park on the Fourth of July. That would be a wonderful way to drive home the point that the underlying purpose of the program is to take money from the pockets of speeders - as a gentle way of inducing them to stop putting others' lives at risk - rather than to put it into government coffers.
Unfortunately, that idea would probably run afoul of environmental regulators in addition to being a political nonstarter.
The fallback would be to channel the money from fines into stepped-up enforcement, including additional cameras, or for small one-time capital projects that improve highway safety.
But entrusting the decisions on how to run the program to the local counterpart to the Internal Revenue Service hardly generates confidence. In Prince George's, that agency has already assigned the program to its parking director, who according to the Gazette has decided not to use the cameras in work zones because they're too temporary.
Hey, Mr. Parking Dude, that's one of the main reasons for passing the state law authorizing speed cameras - to protect highway workers. Some of these county road projects can last for months. Leaving the county's own workers out of the program smells like a revenue-driven decision. That may be practical thinking for a meter czar, but as public policy it stinks.
The council should rethink this extremely harmful decision. If they don't, elected officials from Baltimore City and the other counties that have shown more sense in setting up their speed camera programs ought to stage an intervention to get through to Prince George's council members when the Maryland Association of Counties holds its winter conference in January.
Just keep referring to Prince George's County as "P.G." to their faces until they see the error of their ways.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Baltimoresun.com's 
Having observed speed camera zones in Montgomery County on a regularly traveled route is thus: The speeders (who might actually pay attention) learn quickly about the speed cameras and slow down for about 100 meters (in the kill zone) and then resume their higher speeds immediately thereafter. Net safety effect: Virtually nil. True, the careless, clueless driver still pays the bill. (If they pay at all.) Maybe they are the ones we want to go after anyways.
williamsjond (10/19/2009, 1:08 PM )