In defense of automated enforcement...

Ok, so I realize this won’t be a universally popular opinion, even among our membership, but please read with an open mind…

We need automated traffic enforcement in Baton Rouge. Here’s why…

1. We have a safety problem. Baton Rouge is consistently ranked high in terms of traffic crashes and fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, speeding is a factor in 1/3 of all traffic crashes, making speeding about as dangerous, statistically, as driving while under the influence….

Yet, for some insane reason, speeding is socially acceptable. Speeding is so commonplace that the saying, “They’re not even going the speed limit!” is a common expression. Speeding is so pervasive that many drivers honestly don’t know that the speed limit is the maximum speed you’re allowed to drive, not the minimum at which you should drive.

If you don’t believe me, try this experiment: 1. Drive on any road in Baton Rouge that has at least four lanes of traffic. 2. Drive in the right lane, and drive exactly the speed limit. 3. Count the vehicles that pass you in the left lane or tailgate you. You’ll see what I mean.

People speed because they know there’s little to no chance of getting caught.

And did you know that yellow lights mean you’re supposed to slow down and prepare to stop? Well… a lot of people truly don’t. To most people, yellow means “speed up!” Purposefully going faster as you approach an intersection (where most crashes happen) is really, really unsafe.

2. Conventional means of enforcement are ineffective. Because speeding is so pervasive, there’s no way law enforcement could ever have the manpower to effectively deter it. It’s not their fault. There are 2,600 miles of roadway in Baton Rouge. Even if there were twice as many BRPD officers and all they did was speed enforcement, there would only be enough to patrol a small percentage of the streets for speeding. This is why police generally don’t even bother to pull you over (outside of a school zone, maybe) if you’re only exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or less.

And if you’re thinking, “What’s the big deal about only speeding by a few mph?” It’s dangerous, that’s what the big deal is. To anyone walking, biking or using a mobility aid, 5 or 10 mph can be the difference between life or death. So if you regularly speed while driving…. don’t. Please.

Aren’t there engineering and design solutions, rather than enforcement solutions? Yes. However, our city/parish traffic calming manual doesn’t permit traffic calming on collector or arterial roads (where most of the traffic is). And while traffic calming works very well, it is extremely difficult to get the city/parish to agree to actually do it. The warrants are so difficult to meet that they’re functionally prohibitive, probably intentionally. That’s why there are only a handful of examples in the entire parish.

All that being said…. here are the most common arguments against automated enforcement and why those arguments are wrong:

1. It’s unconstitutional. This argument usually stems from the idea that you actually have to be caught in the act by a person in order for your citation to be valid. So…because you’re caught on camera rather than in-person means you’re not guilty of a crime? That is absurd. Law enforcement has used video evidence since video existed. Not only is video evidence permissible in a court of law, but its use is extremely common. If you robbed a liquor store and the only evidence was a video of you robbing the store, the defense of “Nobody actually caught me doing it, it’s just a video!” would not fare well in court. Why would a traffic citation be any different? It’s not.

2. Just because it’s my car doesn’t mean it was me driving. Fair enough. Infractions can be administered much like parking tickets, which are not moving violations, so they don’t add points on your license. Currently, if you loan your car to someone and that person parks illegally and gets a ticket, the parking enforcement officer doesn’t wait around to see who’s actually driving to issue the ticket. The ticket is issued to whomever the vehicle is registered. It would be the same for tickets issued from a speed camera.

3.The Technology is unreliable. This is simply not true. Current technology, which is improving every day, can totally tell when a vehicle is speeding, take a picture, read the license plate and issue a ticket. This tech is every bit as reliable, more so probably, than a human. Humans are biased. Cameras are not.

4.It’s just a money grab. No one wants to see municipal governments balancing their books on the backs of citizens by way of fines. To prevent this, revenue from automated enforcement can be legally required to go to only three things: 1. operating costs of the program 2. to supplement first responders- crashes will still happen and we’ll need police, fire and EMT to deal with the aftermath of them 3. To fund road safety projects, such as traffic calming, which make speeding and subsequent crashes less likely. Language can be added to the local ordinance that prevents the city/parish from using funds from the program to offset budget shortfalls. Simple. It’s treated as “found money.”

Programs like this can be made more equitable by indexing the fine to the value of the vehicle or to someone’s income, as is currently done in some European countries. Essentially, the less you make, the less you pay and, conversely, the more you make the more you pay. There is no sense on having the financial burden fall disproportionately on low income people.

Moreover, it’s totally within the power of the people to defund this program, should they choose….by not speeding or running red lights. The purpose of automated enforcement isn’t to soak the public. It’s to make everyone drive slower, safer and more attentively.

5. It’s an invasion of privacy. No, it isn’t. You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. Nor do you have a reasonable expectation of anonymity while driving. That’s why license plates exist, so you can be identified while driving.

6. It’ll cause traffic congestion to be worse. No it won’t. Traffic congestion isn’t caused by lack of vehicle speed; it’s caused by too many cars being on the same road at the same time. As I’ve said before (many others too, by the way), driving fast in an urban environment doesn’t make any sense. It’s dangerous and it’s ineffective.

7. Slower driving isn’t necessarily any safer. Yes, it is. The slower you drive, the more time you have to react, the wider your field of vision, the shorter the distance your vehicle requires to stop and the less damage your vehicle will do if it doesn’t. It’s basic physics.

These arguments don’t really hold any water. I suspect that the real source of most people’s opposition is that they know they will be issued citations…because they frequently speed. Pervasive speeding isn’t a reason not to have automated enforcement; it’s the reason it needs to exist.

Still against it? Not to worry… there’s no draft legislation up for debate right now in E. Baton Rouge Parish. None of the council members nor the mayor/president has proposed it. The truth is…it’s a long shot. Automated enforcement is not popular. But if we, as a city, are serious about preventing traffic violence, making our city safer for everyone, we need to start wrapping our heads around this idea. It will do a lot of good.

Thanks for reading til the end.

Doug Moore

President, Bike Baton Rouge

note: this essay reflects only the author’s opinion and not necessarily that of the board or membership of Bike Baton Rouge.