A verdict on speed cameras

The industry group’s report, published late last month, will do little to calm critics who believe the cameras are an intrusion on privacy and don’t give drivers a chance to offer an explanation to an officer, abdicating law-enforcement duties to computers.

Another argument that the speed cameras, and their cousins that monitor red-light running, are little more than cash generators for financially strapped local governments is losing some steam. Admittedly the $40 fine sent by mail with a photo as evidence makes contesting a ticket hardly worth the time and effort of a court appeal. Yet in the first seven months of the Montgomery program, about $2.8 million has been collected in speed-camera fines, not yet covering costs of the program, according to one estimate. Little data is available on how frequently the tickets, which are civil rather than criminal penalties, are successfully challenged in court.

Montgomery is the only jurisdiction in Maryland with speed cameras, although 25 other counties, cities and towns have installed them to scan intersections for red-light violations. Neighboring Howard County is looking to add speed cameras, and a heftier $75 fine, in the coming months. The Maryland legislature opened hearings late last month on bills supported by the governor and legislative leaders that would permit the cameras in highway work zones, where higher fines for speeding are already permitted, to give greater protection to construction and maintenance workers.

Viewed from the vantage point of safety, the cameras make sense. The Governors Highway Safety Association, a national group, says one-third of all traffic deaths are speed-related. Public-opinion polls across the country show majority acceptance for the cameras.

So far, Montgomery’s program has been a model and sensibly run. Rules in place in the county, and those under consideration for a statewide program, require frequent calibration and accuracy checks of the equipment. The location of the cameras is no secret; the county police keep updated lists and maps on their Web site. Drivers are greeted with signs that traffic laws are photo-enforced at most border crossings and in residential areas and school zones where the systems are used.

There are cautionary notes, of course. Wholesale, widespread use of the cameras isn’t viable and they should be one of several tools used to keep speeds within limits. Open and easily available records about maintenance, error rates and other glitches are necessary to ensure confidence in the systems, as are frequent reviews of the performance of contractors operating them.

For all the controversy that has surrounded the cameras, which were first proposed in Maryland in 2003 and took nearly four years to win approval, the results have been favorable and their effectiveness confirmed.