|
Home > Controversies and objections raised by motorists opposed to the use of photo enforcement devices
June 15, 2007
By: Lynn Bryant
Employing the use of photo enforcement devices such as
photo radar and red light cameras can incite a wide range of
opinions among motorists. There are those of course that
believe radar devices are directly responsible for the
reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities. However, a
growing number of motorists hold a decidedly different
opinion. They believe the photo enforcement system to be
ineffective and fraught with error. We will explore some of
the controversies and objections that are being raised by
motorists over the use of these devices.
The complaints surrounding the use of speed cameras and
traffic light photo cameras fall into three basic
categories. These include concerns with the ticket
generation and notification process, inherent flaws in the
system itself, and lack of evidence to support the programs
effectiveness. Each of these categories is explored in
further depth below.
Problems with the ticket generation and notification
process
- Ticket recipients are not adequately notified --
Photo radar and traffic light systems are designed to
automatically generate and mail out tickets to the
registered driver of the violating vehicle. Many
motorists have voiced concern over this automatic
notification process, because there is no way to
guarantee that the motorist ever receives the ticket.
Tickets can be lost in the mail, or mailed to an
outdated address and never forwarded. Drivers that never
receive their tickets are still held responsible for the
violation. Drivers have reported outstanding warrants
and unpaid tickets on their driving record that they
never even knew of.
- Delay between violation and when ticket is received
-- Another problem with the automated ticketing process
is the lag time between when the violation occurs and
the driver receives notification. It can be days, or
even weeks before a motorist receives a ticket that was
generated from a photo radar device. Recalling the
specific events surrounding the alleged violation can be
very difficult given the elapsed time.
- Notification process makes it difficult to defend
oneself -- This is perhaps the biggest complaints
drivers have with the automatic photo ticketing systems.
Drivers argue there is no presumption of innocence with
this type of system. Drivers are automatically
considered guilty and then responsible for carrying the
burden of proof to show their innocence. Frustrated
drivers that never received tickets, or received tickets
when they were not even driving the vehicle are then
required to defend themselves with almost no evidence to
support their side.
Inherent flaws in the system
- Vehicle is targeted and not the driver -- Photo
radar devices are designed to take a photograph of an
offending vehicle's license plate. Tickets are then
generated and sent to the registered driver of the
vehicle. The system is not designed to positively
identify the actual driver of the vehicle. In many
instances, the offending driver is not even the
registered driver of the vehicle. Many have argued that
when an innocent motorist is forced to clear the actions
of another guilty party, it defeats the whole purpose of
the system itself.
- When errors occur, innocent drivers still must carry
the burden of proof -- Drivers that have experienced the
frustration of having to defend themselves against a
system that is fraught with error, have a difficult time
seeing any of the positive benefits that these devices
can bring. Many drivers simply pay their tickets out of
sheer frustration because they have no way of defending
themselves. The way the photo enforcement system is
designed, motorists are required to pay the fine unless
they can provide proof of innocence. In most cases,
drivers find it extremely difficult if not impossible to
produce any type of proof.
Lack of evidence to support claims of programs
effectiveness
There have been several studies conducted that are used
by proponents of the speed and red light camera programs to
prove their effectiveness. However, many drivers have
expressed concern over their accuracy. They argue that
companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related
services as well as governmental agencies that profit from
the revenue generated by these devices are responsible for
influencing study results. Organizations such as
SafeSpeed are cropping up with counter studies and facts
that show a decidedly different trend of ineffectiveness
within photo enforcement programs.
Given the complaints described above, it is easy to see
how the implementation of these photo enforcement systems is
often met with a great deal of controversy. Until some of
these inherent problems are dealt with, this response is not
likely to change anytime soon.
About the Author
Lynn Bryant is a successful freelance writer and contributor
to Video-Surveillance-Guide.com. Your definitive guide to
video surveillance equipment, CCTV cameras and wireless
security systems for home and business.
Also See:
[ How does
thermal imaging work? ]
[ Free
webcam motion detection software for home surveillance ]
[ The benefits and pitfalls of
installing home surveillance cameras ]
[ top of page ]
Related Articles
[ top of page ]
|
