I write to perhaps shed some light on the reasoning for opposition to the use of speed cameras generally, which I believe can be extended to their use in school zones.

First a few contextual background points.

Governments, because of their organization, structure, personnel and political nature, are terrible at distinguishing the difference between "causes" and "effects," so policy changes very seldom actually work, achieve their intended purpose, and are incredibly difficult to change once adopted.

Elected officials do not really need to address issues or perceived problems raised by constituents; they merely need to get their constituents to believe that they tried.

Understanding, evaluating and managing the camera technology requires a thorough, well-grounded knowledge of mathematics and science. Law enforcement personnel have neither.

Speed limits are established politically and, contrary to common belief, are not supported by traffic studies and are changed at political whim. However, all traffic-control devices are regulated by federal rules: the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which requires that speed limits be supported by traffic studies. This raises the question of the equity of enforcing a speed limit that itself does not comply with the law.

Understanding the above, the opposition to the use of the speed camera technology likely has its roots in the fact the speed camera technology itself has never been subjected to objective scrutiny, including in court. Objective research (i.e. not funded or conducted by a camera company) of the technology demonstrates that the technology is imprecise, operated improperly, often inaccurate (very high error rates), and provides misleading results.

The process goes like this: The camera companies use exaggerated research findings to dupe instrumentalities of government into adopting the technology for social or financial benefit. Because the technology has been adopted by an instrumentality of government, the courts assume the technology has been vetted (which it hasn't). Therefore, the courts generally have not allowed challenges, which establishes a precedent for subsequent cases. It is this failure to subject the technology to examination which is likely the cause of generalized opposition. The violation of due-process rights and having different penalties for the same offense (officer versus camera) are also in the mix of reasons.

An example of the cause-effect/government/political dimensions above: Howard County touts its red-light camera program, which has as its stated purpose reducing red-light accidents and saving lives. The program was adopted based upon research and statements from the camera company, was initiated and now generates revenue for the county. The Howard County red-light camera program has reduced accidents at the red light sites where they are used by about 25 to 40 percent, depending on the site. Subsequent to adoption, objective research has demonstrated that there is a much better way to solve the same problem. Based on this research, if we were truly interested in decreasing accidents and saving lives we would deploy the now universally demonstrated, acknowledged, accepted and unrefuted practice of increasing the yellow-light time by one second, which results in a 92 percent reduction in accidents.

But the county can't/won't change because it now does not want to sacrifice the net annual revenues of approximately $500,000-$650,000, and the governmental process is not very good at changing things or admitting that it was wrong. It doesn't need to, due to an uninformed public.

By chasing revenue and not extending the yellow light, the county has chosen money over public safety, and the public is not aware of this perverse choice.

Theodore Giovani

Highland

Theodore Giovani heads a health policy and regulatory consulting firm.