The following was submitted by State Sen. Will Brownsberger
Automated enforcement of speed limits and red lights could substantially reduce accidents. So far, we have not been willing to use the new technology in Massachusetts. To improve safety, I hope we can build support to experiment with automated enforcement in a thoughtful and transparent way.
The technology to recognize license plates is now quite reliable. The barriers to using plate readers for enforcement of basic traffic laws are not technological.
Nor are the barriers financial. Appropriately placed automated enforcement tools could easily pay for themselves.
The barriers are legal and political. Implementation of automated enforcement requires state legislation to define a new procedure for attaching fines to violations. The legal problem is that, in the absence of an officer pulling someone over, it is impossible to know who was driving the vehicle. So, we would have to hold the vehicle owner responsible, but there is no currently mechanism to do that for moving violations.
The necessary legislative action has not been forthcoming. The issue has been kicking around the legislature for a decade.
Most of us are accustomed to making personal decisions about whether or not we can or should attempt to get away with a close push on a red light or a speed five or ten miles per hour above the speed limit. The fact is that police resources are very limited and millions of traffic violations go undetected or ignored every day on the roads of the Commonwealth.
Many of the laws we have in place are not consistent with driver behavior and the lack of enforcement is what keeps people from rebelling. For example, the new 25 mph limit in densely settled areas is slower than most drivers tend to go on many urban roads. I support the lower limit because the safety benefits of lower speeds are huge – accidents are less frequent and less severe. But I’m conscious that on many urban roads, most drivers will continue to go 40.
If municipalities had the authority to implement automated enforcement, there is a concern that they might use it to create revenue-producing speed traps, or through a clumsy roll-out end up issuing tickets to thousands of people, provoking a backlash (as recently occurred in Providence).
In addition to the legitimate reservations that many have about over-enforcement, privacy advocates are concerned about the expansion of cameras and the accumulation of data about the movement of drivers. This is indeed a legitimate concern, but it is one that can be addressed by clear rules and automatic deletion of records not needed for the prosecution of particular violations.
People concerned about over-enforcement and the “big brother” accumulation of data often also raise questions about how effective the tools are in changing behavior. In my mind, the effectiveness depends on practical decisions made in the roll-out. Where are the cameras placed? To what extent do drivers have advance warning? It seems beyond reasonable dispute that a good implementation with fair enforcement goals could change behavior in positive ways.
I do intend to continue to pursue the issue of automated enforcement, but I recognize that it needs a broad discussion and we cannot do it without broad popular support. Your thoughts much appreciated. I would especially appreciate thoughts on how to target automated enforcement and how to make it work fairly.
I’ve posted a longer version of this essay with some resources at willbrownsberger.com and it has generated a lot of discussion. I would welcome your additional comments there, or at William.brownsberger@masenate.
(Will Brownsberger represents the 2nd Suffolk and Middlesex Senate District, which includes Watertown, Belmont and parts of Boston)