Readers not impressed by St. Ann’s new speed camera

In the poll last week (post: St. Ann’s speed camera begins February 1st) readers were clear: a speed camera in the school zone is not the best way to make the street safe, it is about revenue for the municipality.  In this case the suburb of St. Ann.  For the most part I’m not bothered by speed & red light cameras because I tend to follow traffic laws to the letter.  However, safety on the streets, especially for pedestrians, is a high priority for me.

Q: This week St. Ann begins school zone enforcement using speed-zone camera technology. These are:Bad: will only increase revenues for St. Ann: 35 [40.7%]

1. Good: will increase safety in the school zone: 21 [24.4%]
2. Other: better solutions exist to slow traffic: 21 [24.4%]
3. Neutral: won’t have much of an impact on safety but it doesn’t bother me: 5 [5.8%]
4. Other answer… 2 [2.3%]
5. Unsure/no opinion. 2 [2.3%]

The two “other” responses were:

• compensating for taxes lost from NW Plaza Foreclosure/Wal-Mart leaving
• need mass transit not more speed traps this is bs

For me the question comes back to performance.  If the cameras are successful then fine.  But do they? Trying to find unbiased information is impossible. On the pro-camera side is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

“Do speed cameras reduce travel speeds?

Institute studies show that automated speed enforcement can substantially reduce speeding on a wide range of roadway types. Institute studies in Maryland, Arizona and the District of Columbia found that the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by 70, 95, and 82 percent respectively. Research conducted outside the United States also shows large effects of speed cameras on traffic speeds. For example, in Victoria, Australia, speed cameras were introduced in late 1989, and police reported that within 3 months the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 percent. The percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from about 20 percent in 1990 to fewer than 4 percent in 1994.

Are there other technologies that could aid in enforcing speed limits in both urban and suburban areas?

Yes. Roadside electronic signs that display vehicle speeds to warn drivers they are speeding may reduce speeds and crashes at high-risk locations. Institute research found that mobile roadside speedometers can reduce speeds at the sites of the speedometers as well as for short distances down the road.16 When used in conjunction with police enforcement, the effect of speedometers can last longer. Signs warning truck drivers that they are exceeding maximum safe speeds on exit ramps also show promise, as they reduce the numbers of trucks traveling greatly above maximum safe speeds.

Two emerging technologies are being used to enforce speed limits. Intelligent speed adaptation links a position of the traveling vehicle via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and computerized maps with speed limits to determine if the vehicle is speeding. The system may work as an advisory system for the driver or an intervention system that automatically reduces the vehicle’s speed to comply with the speed limit. Point-to-point speed camera technology records the time it takes a vehicle to travel between two camera locations to compute an average speed and compare it to the posted speed limit. This system uses optical recognition technology to match the two photographed vehicle license plates. Point-to-point speed cameras are being used to enforce the speed limit on the Hume Freeway in Victoria, Australia. In the UK, point-to-point speed camera systems are known as “Distributed Average Speed” camera systems and have received government approval.”

Cities that have tried speed cameras offer a different perspective.  One community in Arizona has removed speed enforcement cameras:

“Pinal County supervisors Wednesday bid goodbye to photo enforcement.

Their vote to terminate their contract with Redflex, the company that operates the cameras, came at the recommendation of the county’s top law-enforcement official, new Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

“I’m against photo speed enforcement completely,” Babeu said, walking the three-member panel through a detailed PowerPoint presentation. “Here in Pinal, it’s failed miserably.”

Babeu said speed cameras created dangerous road conditions and offered little financial benefit for the county. He plans to boost traffic enforcement through additional manpower.” (Source: Pinal County shelves speed-camera program)

To me these cameras are more about revenue than safety.  Better ways exist to slow traffic and raise awareness of the presence of school children.   Ticketing was to begin on February 1st but the Post-Dispatch reported on the 4th that warnings will continue through at least the end of the month.

– Steve Patterson