Increasing traffic safety is laudable. Speed cameras are the wrong way to do it.

Read the article at IndyStar

Summary of “Speed cameras are government tools to make money. Keep them out of Indiana.”

Quick Overview

In a recent opinion piece, Evan McMahon, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, argues against the implementation of speed cameras in Indiana, particularly in work zones. He contends that these cameras prioritize revenue generation over genuine traffic safety, raising concerns about privacy, constitutional rights, and the potential for abuse by government entities.

Key Points

1. Revenue Generation vs. Safety: McMahon asserts that while the stated purpose of speed cameras is to enhance traffic safety, the underlying goal is to generate revenue for the government.
2. Slippery Slope of Surveillance: The article warns that the limited pilot program could lead to a broader implementation of speed cameras, similar to trends observed in Europe and some U.S. cities where revenue generation has taken precedence over safety.
3. Constitutional Concerns: McMahon highlights significant Sixth Amendment issues, arguing that speed cameras do not allow individuals to confront their accuser, as the cameras only capture the vehicle’s license plate, not the driver.
4. Privacy Issues: The use of cameras raises privacy concerns, as they can record and store data about all vehicles passing through a monitored area without consent.
5. Call for Traditional Enforcement: The author advocates for traditional traffic enforcement methods, such as having police officers present to monitor speeds, which he argues would alleviate privacy concerns and ensure accountability.

Detailed Breakdown

Revenue Generation vs. Safety

McMahon begins by criticizing the Indiana Department of Transportation’s (INDOT) pilot program that allows speed cameras in work zones. He believes that once governments adopt new revenue-generating methods, they become entrenched and difficult to remove. The program permits the use of speed cameras at up to four locations per year, issuing warnings or fines up to $150 for drivers exceeding the speed limit by 11 miles per hour. He emphasizes that the primary goal appears to be financial gain rather than improving safety.

Slippery Slope of Surveillance

The article draws comparisons to European countries, where extensive use of speed cameras has led to widespread surveillance and revenue-driven traffic enforcement. McMahon warns that the initial limitations of the Indiana program could easily expand, similar to the experience of cities in the U.S. that have utilized red-light cameras primarily for financial gain, often resulting in increased accidents due to drivers braking abruptly to avoid fines.

Constitutional Concerns

A central argument in McMahon’s piece is the violation of the Sixth Amendment rights of individuals caught by speed cameras. He points out that these systems capture only the vehicle’s license plate and do not identify the driver, leading to potential unjust penalties for vehicle owners who were not the ones operating the car at the time of the offense.

Privacy Issues

The author expresses alarm over the privacy implications of speed cameras, which can record and retain data on every vehicle that passes through a monitored area. He raises concerns about data control in the hands of third-party vendors, which could lead to misuse or unauthorized access to sensitive information.

Call for Traditional Enforcement

McMahon concludes by advocating for the return of traditional traffic enforcement methods, such as police officers using radar to monitor speeds. He argues that this approach would not only respect citizens’ rights but also reduce the incentives for municipalities to prioritize revenue over public safety.

Notable Quotes & Data

• “Once a government discovers a new method of taking money from taxpayers, it’s almost impossible to turn it off.”
• “A machine cannot testify against you and you cannot cross-examine one.”
• “Citizens already believe police are playing a game of ‘gotcha’ to catch nonviolent offenders.”

Context & Implications

McMahon’s opinion piece reflects broader concerns about government overreach and the potential for surveillance technologies to infringe on individual rights. As states grapple with budgetary pressures and the need for public safety, the debate over speed cameras encapsulates the tension between effective law enforcement and the prioritization of revenue generation. The implications of this discussion extend beyond Indiana, as other states may consider similar measures, prompting a reevaluation of how traffic safety is enforced in the modern era.