Report a Comment

@ConnAve
You, like every other camera opponent on this thread, seem to focus on these cameras to say that they are not effective in improving pedestrian safety, and that they are instead a "revenue grab." You claim there's no evidence that cameras are effective. People point you to studies showing that cameras result in lower speeds. You claim that doesn't show they're effective at improving pedestrian safety. They point you to studies showing improvements in pedestrian safety near cameras in MoCo. You say that doesn't prove they improve pedestrian safety in the District. And then, switching gears, you say that if the camera studies are true, then we shouldn't have cameras less than 1/2 mile apart.

What would actually convince you? Would you like a comprehensive study of pedestrian safety in the District? Great. (I do hope you're willing to pay for it, though.)

But let's just suppose for a second that what you imply (without any evidence, mind you) is true - that cameras aren't leading to fewer pedestrian injuries. Let's further suppose is really is just a District revenue grab. What exactly would be so terrible about that? DC has to get money somewhere. It imposes taxes on real estate and sales of goods and incomes and restaurant meals and cigarettes. Even if cameras were designed solely, 100% to raise revenue, whi is that so bad? They impose a cost on people who break the law. So long as there's no trickery going on (like shortening yellow lights where red-light cameras are installed, or putting up false speed-limit signs, or miscalibrating the speed cameras -- and there's no indication that DC is doing any of these things), what's wrong with a fee or tax whose incidence falls on those who violate the law, and is easily avoidable? (I can think of some reasons why relying on such a source of revenue is a bad idea, and can create bad incentives, but I can think of reasons why other fees, taxes, and enforcement schemes likewise have their problems. That doesn't mean those things are worth doing, on balance.)

The fact is, having cars move the speed limit (i.e. slower than they would be going in the absence of enforcement) not only decreases the likelihood of crashes, it tends to decrease the likelihood that injury will be serious or fatal in the event of a crash. (And that's leaving out the benefits that reduced car speeds have on pedestrian access -- pedestrians can actually dare to enter a crosswalk if cars are approaching at a reasonable speed, instead of bearing down at 40 or 50 on a city street.) And as numerous studies have shown, cameras do tend to lead to decreases in speed.

I know you don't want to believe any of the above, and you want to suggest that cameras somehow make things worse. But if you do, then why don't you find some evidence for that? Find the study showing that drivers speed up as a result of cameras (*and* that that extra speed leads to more injuries, and diminished convenience for pedestrians). We all realize that speed limits can feel like a burden when one is driving, and needs to get somewhere fast. Try to realize that having cars speeding by can also be a burden to others.

by Paula Product on Mar 28, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report