|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Posted September 26, 2001
Red-Light ‘Rights’By Peter A. Harkness
Some months ago, on my way home from work in downtown Washington, D.C., I witnessed a near-disaster that still gives me the shivers. A car traveling well over the speed limit raced to make a left-hand turn through an intersection. The light already had turned red, and pedestrians were in the crosswalk. A young woman directly in the car’s path froze and screamed. The driver slammed on the brakes and swerved, missing her by inches. It was a sound and scene that is permanently stored in my memory.
A neighbor of mine, a woman in her eighties, was not so lucky. Last year, she was hit by a speeding car as she tried to cross the central boulevard in our community, just a block from my house. We had been pressuring the police for years to crack down on speeders on that street, at one point during the reign of Mayor Marion Barry even purchasing a new radar gun for the cops. The driver of the car that killed my neighbor never stopped, and to my knowledge has never been apprehended.
So when the city, now governed by Anthony Williams, decided to join the other 50 or so jurisdictions that have installed cameras that automatically ticket drivers who run red lights at busy intersections, we cheered. Now the police are introducing mobile photo radar cameras that catch speeders and mail them fines based on how fast they were going.
Then along comes Dick Armey, the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, who represents a suburb of Dallas. Armey is convinced that the use of such technology to nab speeders and red-light runners constitutes an undue invasion of privacy that tramples upon “our constitutional protections” and “our cherished freedoms.” I personally was unaware that I had the freedom to speed and run red lights, but to Armey this is another case of Big Brother trying to trick unwitting motorists in order to raise more revenue.
This isn’t a purely local matter because in the District of Columbia, there is no such thing. Congress, if it so wishes, can do just about whatever it wants with the city. So when a congressional leader such as Armey, who never has been accused of giving undue thought to any opinion that pops into his head, makes a pronouncement, we must listen.
What Armey and those who believe him (and there are many) conveniently ignore is the fact that this new technology is very effective in changing drivers’ behavior. In 1998, before any cameras were installed, we had 16 pedestrians killed in the city by cars running red lights. Last year, with only 30 cameras in place, we had two deaths. Nationally, every year about 800 people are killed and another 200,000 injured by drivers speeding through on red lights. Wherever these systems have been installed, the impact has been dramatic. On average, red-light running has been cut about in half.
D.C. is clearly saving lives. In Texas, the legislature on a tie vote turned down the enabling legislation that would have allowed the state’s municipalities to install such systems. Score one for Dick Armey and the “rights” of red-light runners.
Peter A. Harkness is editor & publisher of Governing.
Recently in View:
Post-Terrorism Politics: the beneficiaries of the attacks (posted September 18, 2001)
The Ignoble Among Us: cockroaches and tragedy (posted September 17, 2001)
We’re All the Government Now: when terror blurs the lines (posted September 14, 2001)
River of Dreams: a riverfront and unrealistic aspirations (posted September 10, 2001)
Punishing Efficiency: the wrong lessons from a budget crunch (posted September 3, 2001)
Complete index of previous columns
|
|