 |
About those 'cowardly' traffic-camera evaders
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
07/14/09 8:11 AM EDT
Leave it to D.C. authorities to complain and denounce a tool that helps drivers behave more safely.
You may have seen this story in The Examiner last week about computer applications like PhantomAlert, designed for GPS devices (and in testing for the i-Phone), and Trapster, which to identify speed traps and traffic cameras. These programs cause your GPS or i-Phone to beep when you approach one of these fiscal hazards, warning you to slow down.
Most drivers in D.C. know where at least a few of the speed cameras are. There's one on Michigan Avenue near Catholic University, for example. The one on I-395, south of New York Avenue, causes drivers to slam on their brakes even when there's no traffic. Some of the cameras are stationary, and others are mobile. Speed and red-light cameras are big business for D.C., raising $250 million each year. If you're caught on one, you'll receive a ticket in the mail for anywhere between $30 and $200.
For the driver who cannot keep track of the proliferation of red-light cameras, PhantomAlert and other programs like it seem terrific. They might remind you to slow down on a tricky Palisades downhill. (Watch out for that camera on MacArthur Blvd.) Perhaps they'll even save you some money.
But D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier doesn't like it. She told The Examiner that those using the application are employing a "cowardly tactic" and "are going to get caught"
"It's designed to circumvent law enforcement," she said last week -- "law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives."
So let's get this straight: If I slow down when my GPS beeps, that doesn't save lives. What saves lives is when I speed, get a $200 ticket in the mail a week later, and then send a check to the District of Columbia government.
If you're not convinced by this logic, you're not alone. Joe Scott, the founder and CEO of PhantomAlert, told me that most police departments approve of his product precisely because cameras only affect driving behavior when people know they are there.
"How can you call it illegal," he asked me, "for people to use a tool to be safe and alert drivers? PhantomAlert is just like a passenger telling you, 'Hey, slow down, there's a camera up ahead.' I don't understand why they have a problem with it, unless these cameras are for revenue and not for public safety."
There is plenty of debate about cameras' effectiveness in saving lives, but there's no debate at all over whether they are good for government coffers.
Follow The Examiner
