In Arizona and elsewhere, politicians are starting to get the picture that speed cameras are unpopular and ineffective.
Traffic speed cameras are now used in 45 cities nationwide. Theoretically, bringing in revenue through speeding tickets instead of taxation while promoting public safety appears to be a win-win proposition. In reality, it just fuels more wasteful government spending.
In Arizona, speed camera revenues fund a new, optional, experimental government agency that only a few other states have tried, Clean Elections. Clean Elections provides public funding for politicians to run for office, and since it originated in 2000 has not resulted in "cleaner" elections. A 2003 study (pdf) by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found no significant changes in Arizona and Maine, the two states that initially implemented it. Other studies found little impact or even a negative effect (pdf) on lobbyist influence, incumbency, and the types of candidates who run for office.
Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano forced the implementation of speed cameras statewide promising to fix the budget, but Arizona still had the second worst budget deficit per capita in the nation last year (only California was worse). Speed cameras aren't profitable, studies have shown that government collects less than half of the amount of each ticket, and much of that is used up handling court appeals, since approximately 40% of those who receive tickets appeal them.Government officials freely acknowledge that the purpose of speed cameras is not safety, but revenue generation.
Read the rest of this article at The American Spectator
My wife and I live in Arizona, and she recently got a photo speeding ticket for going 67 in a 55 mph zone on SR 69 in Prescott Valley heading into Prescott. We found out they are not a revenue generating device also because the driver can avoid paying the fine by opting for traffic school. The money goes to the school and the courts. It costs about the same as the fine, but it’s not supposed to go on your record. However, you can go to the school only [I think] three times in a one-year period.
The Hwy 101 Loop [Beltway, if you will] around Phoenix is different. It had a bad reputation for speeding until they put in the cameras. People had been clocked at over 100 mph.
The thought occurred to me that they will eventually get so unpopular that a person could be a shoo-in to political office if he ran on only getting rid of the cameras.
I am glad people are growing concerned with government surveillance and hope to see this cameras removed here in Arizona very soon.
I do, however, find Dean Martin’s claim that this constitutes a tax to be absurd. I am surprised to see a prosecutor make support this as one wonders what this would mean for any new civil fine.
todd:
If the government is doing it to raise money instead of enforcing the speed limit, why is it not a tax? What would be your definition of a tax?
Remember, taxes have to be authorized by the legislature.
There was an interesting case back in the ’70s when I was learning to fly. To use the radio transmitter, one had to have a “limited radio transmitter” license issued by the FCC. There was no test; all you had to do was send in an application and an FCC wallet-sized card filled out with just your name on it, along with an $8 fee. They had raised the fee from $2.50 just prior to my application. All the FCC did was file the application, stamp the card, and send it back to you.
Someone filed a class action lawsuit against the government claiming that the FCC was collecting a tax not authorized by Congress because the $8 “fee” was way above the FCC’s cost to issue the license. The courts agreed, and those who paid the $8, including me, got a partial refund, about $5.00.
sedonaman,
Aren’t all fines a way of generating revenue? I just don’t see how this is any more of a tax than when one gets a speeding ticket from a cop.
todd:
Re: “Aren’t all fines a way of generating revenue? I just don’t see how this is any more of a tax than when one gets a speeding ticket from a cop.”
How much net revenue can be raised by the police writing tickets? Since there is some doubt as to the effectiveness of even the cameras, not much, I suspect. Therefore, I don’t think “all” fines are a way of generating revenue if the government’s motivation is to modify behavior.
Using your line of reasoning, we could conclude that putting criminals in prison is really just a way of spending taxpayer money.
sedonaman,
I did not say all fines were merely a way of generating revenue, but that is one of their purposes. It seems that people don’t like this specific fine (and as I indicated above, I disagree with the method) and therefore it becomes a “tax” in their eyes.