2mph “school zone” ticket. This is not about safety. No one is that perfect.
Edgewood resident Michael Stanzel is challenging the use of school zone cameras, speed cameras, and red light cameras in Washington after receiving a ticket for going 22 miles an hour.
Summary: The Debate Over School Zone Speed Cameras in Washington
Quick Overview
In Washington, a heated discourse has emerged regarding the use of speed cameras in school zones, sparked by Edgewood resident Michael Stanzel’s challenge against the ticketing practices of these cameras. He, along with radio hosts Jake Skorheim and Spike O’Neill, debates the effectiveness and transparency of these systems, questioning whether they genuinely contribute to child safety or primarily serve as revenue generators for municipalities.
Key Points
- Ticketing Practices Under Scrutiny: Michael Stanzel received a ticket for driving 22 miles per hour in a school zone, prompting him to investigate the allocation of funds generated by speed cameras.
- Financial Concerns: Stanzel argues that the approximately $500,000 generated annually in Edgewood from these cameras often fails to support safety programs as promised.
- Divergent Views on Effectiveness: While Spike O’Neill defends the cameras as necessary deterrents for dangerous driving, Jake Skorheim expresses skepticism about their true purpose.
- Call for Increased Patrols: Both hosts agree that enhancing police presence around schools could be a more effective solution than relying solely on automated cameras.
- Community Engagement: Stanzel has initiated a petition to garner public support against the use of speed cameras, reaching out to local officials for reform.
Detailed Breakdown
The Challenge to Speed Cameras
Michael Stanzel’s experience with receiving a ticket led him to question the operations of school zone speed cameras. He highlighted that the revenue collected from these fines is often misallocated, not being used for the intended safety improvements.
Perspectives on Safety and Revenue
Spike O’Neill argues that speed cameras are critical for deterring reckless driving, stating, “The monetary penalty isn’t to put money in the city’s coffers, but it’s a deterrent.” He believes that the penalties are necessary to teach drivers the consequences of speeding, especially in school zones.
Conversely, Jake Skorheim voices a distrust of the system, asserting, “I feel like they’re trying to pull a fast one over you when they tell you that the money is going to go to keeping kids safe, and then they use it for something else.” He suggests that the focus should be on increasing police patrols during school hours rather than relying on automated enforcement.
Potential Solutions
Both hosts agree that if speed cameras were to be eliminated, a robust alternative focused on children’s safety would need to be established. They propose that more active patrols could effectively reduce speeding without the reliance on camera systems that may foster distrust among drivers.
Notable Quotes & Data
- Michael Stanzel stated, “Much of the around $500,000 a year that Edgewood generates from these cameras often does not go toward safety programs as promised.”
- Spike O’Neill emphasized the deterrent nature of the cameras, arguing, “If you keep doing this illegal thing, it’s going to keep costing you, and eventually, you can’t afford to drive anymore.”
- Jake Skorheim remarked, “Any person that drives 22 over 20 … to me, no cop would ever write that ticket.”
Context & Implications
The discussion surrounding speed cameras in school zones reflects broader concerns regarding public safety, government accountability, and the ethical implications of automated law enforcement. As communities grapple with these issues, the debate may influence future policies on traffic enforcement and funding allocation. Stanzel’s petition and outreach to local officials could pave the way for significant changes in how traffic safety is managed in school zones, potentially leading to a shift in public perception and policy regarding speed enforcement.
In conclusion, the ongoing dialogue between advocates for speed cameras and their critics underscores the complexities of balancing safety with transparency and trust in local governance.