ABC's World News Tonight reporter fails to report the reason why Scottsdale, Arizona installed traffic speed cameras on the state highway – to generate easy money, not improve traffic safety.
The media are frequently cynical about the private sector’s profit motive, but when it comes to government schemes to rake in more cash, the same skepticism often doesn’t kick in. That was the case on the February 22 “World News Tonight” as reporter Miguel Marquez portrayed highway speed cameras in Scottsdale, Ariz., as a tool to promote highway safety while ignoring how the cameras are a coveted cash cow to local governments.
“People go too fast, like ‘The Fast and the Furious’… all the young kids,” motorist Harry Espey complained to Marquez at the top of his “World News Tonight” report.
Marquez showed Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross insisting her constituents have “been clamoring for the last few years” for a way to slow down traffic. Dismissing some tepid criticism from an Arizona state legislator who prefers traffic stops over cameras, the ABC reporter closed his piece fully convinced that only public safety, not easy money, was the politicians’ motivation. “Scottsdale will decide by next fall whether to extend the program. If traffic accidents are down, it could be coming to a freeway near you,” he concluded.
But while Marquez portrayed the cameras as government’s selfless response to safety needs, a reporter for an Arizona paper found that money, not increased safety, seemed to be driving Scottsdale’s push for speeding cameras.
The Arizona Republic’s Lesley Wright reported in the February 23 paper that Scottsdale officials voted unanimously to oppose state legislation requiring fair warning to motorists to slow down around camera setups. “All of these bills are meant to discourage photo-enforcement around the state,” complained the mayor. Wright went on to add city lobbyist Bridget Schwartz-Manock’s complaint that another state bill, which “would phase out state-shared revenue” to Arizona’s largest cities, would “lose” those large cities, including Scottsdale, some $34 million in speeding ticket revenue.
In a Mar. 23, 2005, Atlanta Journal Constitution op-ed, Cato policy analyst Radley Balko criticized speed cameras for violating constitutional rights by presuming a speeder guilty until proven innocent and for proving to be addictive to cash-hungry politicians, citing abuses in Sacramento, Calif., Washington, D.C., and Bethesda, Md.
Who cares what the politicians’ motives are? They’re not forcing you to hand over money. Just don’t speed – it’s pretty simple.
There are instances where you may very well have to speed up to avoid being rear-ended. A cop on the beat would be able to determine the difference between that and recklessly driving above the speed limit. The cameras merely exist to catch someone in the act of speeding, presume guilt, and pressure them into paying the ticket rather than contest in court. It’s a revenue-enhancer, it doesn’t enhance public safety. That’s why, Malph.
We have the same thing pending here in Houston. It is supposed to be for safety, but the city government has also admitted that it wants the money generated by the camera system. They never learn to live within a budget like the rest of us have to.
Now I guess they can start lowering our taxes since the cameras are making all that extra revnue.
yeah, like I’m going to hold my breath on that one.
They make a spray for your plates so cameras cannot get your plate. I have it several reasons. I suggest people get it or maybe someone can just park an RV in front of the camera or hit it with a paint ball gun.
i consider auto insurane laws as un ethical as they only effect the poor, when you cant afford to pay your insuranec you get fined drasticly, insurance rates go up, pay extra money to dmv and then file an sr22 al of which increases you financial burden and hardship, how can such laws be viewed as constitutional as it makes it so only those with money are allowed to drive.