Taking on the Government The Dangers of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement
(Thank Abolish RLC and speed scameras in Seattle for the link).
The Dangers of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement
Published on Saturday, 12 November 2011 19:55
Written by christopher
With privatized traffic law enforcement systems spreading quickly across the United States, even more municipal governments have been entering into deals with the for-profit companies, allowing them to install camera systems at intersections and use mobile "speed vans" along roadways. More than 700 local governments have entered into such deals, under the guise of protecting the public.
Although it has been argued that automated traffic enforcement systems may SOMETIMES be useful in keeping drivers and pedestrians safe, more evidence points to the growing idea these systems are only money-making ventures, for local governments, especially when these governments pass up obvious, free ideas, proven to decrease red-light violations, like extending yellow light times. It has also been pointed out that many of the "beneficial" studies are often issued by the very companies installing the speed monitoring equipment. It begins to become obvious that these for-profit, private companies may be putting revenues first, public safety second and public interest last.
As with any business, the primary interest of private camera companies is no different: to maximize profits by earning more revenue and decreasing costs. American Traffic Solutions' private business owners believe their business choices will yield profitable results. Likewise, the executives at Redflex and Affiliated Computer Services, who answer to a board of stockholders, require returns, quarterly.
One need not look further than Redflex's report to its shareholders, issued annually. In one such report, executives lay out how "tighter contract language" and "more aggressive collection efforts in key markets" are paramount tactics the company will use to increase the returns to the investors, for the coming year.
In conclusion, it should be no surprise the goals of private photo enforcement companies are most often in direct conflict with the interests of the municipal governments goals, in preventing accidents and protecting the health and property of their citizens. Quite often, contracts involving these companies are written in ways, with specific language, putting profits first and public safety second. An example: Contracts that require the city to divert revenue to the camera vendor on a per-ticket basis... the more tickets the camera writes, the more money the vendor gets. These systems encourage the vendors and politicians backing them to place more priority on ticket writing, than the actual job, public safety.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
