Traffic To Your Site | Will We Really Be Safer With Traffic Cams?

Have motorists suddenly begun treating Park Avenue like the Autobahn? If so, where's the evidence?

Because the use of traffic cameras would eliminate interaction with law enforcement, wouldn't they discriminate against buxom blondes, women able to shed copious, fake tears on demand, and every well-connected motorist who can drop the name of a cop? Isn't it un-American to be slapped with a citation before having the chance to wheedle your way out of it?

What's the point of having a police officer in the family if you can't escape a speeding ticket?

Shouldn't the city focus on legitimate economic development, rather than try to nickel and dime already-overtaxed residents?

Last week, the City Council voted 8-2 to authorize the city manager to file special legislation that would allow the use of video surveillance equipment at certain city intersections. If approved, the city could use traffic cameras that would photograph the license plate of a vehicle that's speeding, running a red light, or performing other frowned-upon traffic maneuvers, such as listening to Rush Limbaugh on the car radio. Violators would receive a citation in the mail.

I see many problems with traffic cameras, but if you listen to city councilors, we need them ASAP to reign in all the crazy motorists who are turning Worcester into the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series.

"It's time we take control of this issue," Councilor-at-Large Konstantina B. Lukes said last Tuesday. "We have to get control of our streets because they are not safe anymore."

Added Councilor-at-Large Kathleen Toomey, "There are people going through red lights who barely miss killing people."

Hyperbole aside, motorists everywhere will always go through red lights. But I'm guessing that, in terms of getting "control of our streets," residents are more concerned about drive-by shootings in broad daylight than with illegal right turns on Chandler Street. At least, they should be.

More than 600 communities in 28 states use speed and right-light safety cameras to enforce traffic laws, despite the fact that evidence is far from conclusive that they reduce accidents and injuries. Indeed, some studies have shown the opposite, that the number of accidents actually goes up at intersections with the cameras. Critics say the presence of the snoopy little monitors can cause motorists to panic and hit the brakes, increasing the number of rear-enders.

Then there's the other big issue. While proponents stress that they favor the cameras as a public safety issue, these omnipresent gizmos are also a way for cities to raise more revenue. If the cameras are installed in Worcester, the city gets to keep the money from the automatic tickets. Now, those payments are submitted directly to the state. And the private companies that install the cameras typically get a cut, also, so it's in everyone's interest to bag as many drivers as possible.

Citing The Washington Post, Washington, D.C. raked in $7.2 million with 85,678 automated tickets from May 2009 to June 2010. That's a lot of green generated by red-light cameras.

"A bad situation doesn't necessitate a bad law," said Councilor-at-Large Frederick Rushton, who voted against the measure with District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri. "The priority is money. Public safety is an excuse to get to the ultimate goal."

Said one local wag, "If they send me a picture of my license plate, I'm sending them a picture of my money."

In Arizona, controversy over the cameras led to them being discontinued on freeways last year and in Tempe last month, after the camera company sued the city and claimed that it didn't share the proper portion of fees. Just what the city needs - the potential for another costly lawsuit.

On a philosophical level, these cameras are an affront to residents who value their civil liberties and their right to due process. Americans have always shown an understandable and instinctive distrust of automatic surveillance; we'll tolerate it if we must, but not as a way of turning local intersections into a cash cow for the city. Somewhat ironically, police nationwide hate being videotaped while performing their duties and at least three states actually prohibit it. If it's not acceptable to them, why should it be OK for us?

It shouldn't. Do we really want these Big Brother tattletales picking our pockets? Haven't they already been picked enough?