Speed Cameras Are Detestable
The Post-Dispatch reports today that the city of Charlack is installing speed cameras along I-170 in near-north St. Louis County. The city is installing the camera on a state-owned bridge to give tickets for speeding on a federal/state highway. The mayor of the town of 1,431 people must think the rest of us are morons if he actually expects anyone to believe this:
Despite criticism that cameras are aimed at generating revenue, [the city's mayor] said Charlack passed a budget that did not count on camera fines. He said the ultimate goal is to phase out the photo program once motorists regularly drive more slowly through town.
The idea that the city will phase out the cameras once people drive more slowly is perhaps the most unbelieveable statement I’ve heard a politician say in a long time. And who cares if they passed a budget that did not count on camera fines? All that means is that they can spend the money however they want once it starts flowing in.
I have argued that the many small cities in St. Louis County should continue to exist as long as the citizens want them to. Here is the conclusion to my Government in Missouri study:
Missourians have chosen to have a large quantity of smaller government units. They have also chosen to have a large number of elected officials, representing smaller areas than the national average, so that the citizens may be in closer contact with those officials and monitor them more effectively. Economies of scale can be exploited in larger governments, as shown in the graph of per-capita spending for class three counties, but the efficiencies and benefits of larger government are less common and less significant than often supposed. The assumption that larger, less fragmented government is a more capable and efficient provider of services does not stand up to initial analysis and is not supported by the research.
But behavior like installing speed cameras, which is nothing more than a technologically advanced version of St. George–style speed traps, makes me question that once again. I would certainly favor legislation at the state or county level to forbid these types of cameras on the road — at the very least, on state or county roads.
I believe that speed cameras, just like red light cameras, are nothing more than a giant scam. I also believe they violate our rights — most importantly, the right not to be tracked by cameras every moment of your life. I am confident that would have been the Eleventh Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, if cameras had been invented yet.
Amen.
Comment by Phil — July 13, 2010 @ 12:37 p.m.
I drive that section of 170 everyday!
Comment by Ruth Carlson — July 13, 2010 @ 1:27 p.m.
Dave,
What is the source of the speeding violations? Is it a city ordinance or a state statute?
Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 13, 2010 @ 2:33 p.m.
Speeding violations are going to be city ordinances. I am not questioning the overall “right” of Charlack to enforce speeding violations with its city limits. I was just pointing out that they are going to make a lot of money from tickets on a road they do not pay to maintain, and on a road for which I think state law could be changed to prevent the use of items like speed cameras. Charlack would counter that they do pay for the police officers that attend to accidents in that stretch of highway. (There is no Charlack Fire Department.) Perhaps I could have been a little more clear there.
There have been disputes between the owners of roads and the cities they go through. I recall when the Forest Park Parkway reopened in 2006 that St. Louis County, which owned it, and Clayton, which much of it went through, disagreed over the speed limit that was to be set. For a very brief time – if memory serves me – the city and county set different speed limits on the road, and it would have been quite an issue if Clayton had issued traffic tickets for speeding violations above their speed limit but less than the county limit. The issue was resolved quickly, and I don’t think that ever happened.
Comment by David Stokes — July 13, 2010 @ 2:58 p.m.
Dave,
That makes sense. Let me ask you this question: when Highway Patrol writes a ticket, are they enforcing a city ordinance or state statute?
What I’m really wondering is where the money goes and what the structural authority comes from, because it makes a difference. Fines vesting from breaches of the penal code are constitutionally directed to Missouri’s education funds, and I’m curious about where all that goes.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 13, 2010 @ 8:50 p.m.
Eapen,
Great questions. Fun questions. The answer is apparently everything. By “everything” I mean the highway patrol, or city police departments or county sheriffs on state roads, are enforcing both local ordinances and state statutes. MoDOT and state statutes set speed limits on state highways: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3040000010.HTM. Cities and counties generally also set their own limits. Those limits are almost always the same as the MoDOT regulations. If not, they have to be approved by MoDOT beforehand. Of course, the highway patrol spends very little time patrolling urban areas. They are generally writing tickets on state highways in unincorporated areas, and those tickets are generally enforcing county ordinances.
Comment by David Stokes — July 13, 2010 @ 11:36 p.m.
Dave,
Thanks…that’s kind of the answer I was expecting. I guess my next question would be that for purposes of Article IX, what is the relationship between a MODOT approved city or county moving ordinance and the state statute it derives from? Does the ordinance operate for Article IX purposes as an independent ordinance or does it carry it with the derivative underlying state jurisdiction?
Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 14, 2010 @ 3:01 a.m.
COMMENT: The Charlack camera automated SPEEDING traffic ticket is NOT considered A MOVING VIOLATION therefore you can not have the amount of the ticket reduced by one of those traffic law lawyers. Charlack will give you a $35.00 rebate, of the $100.00 fine, if you attend a 3 hour Traffic Safety Class and no points will go against your license nor will your car insurance provider be notified. If this violation were treated as a moving violation would different laws apply?
Comment by Kim Evans — November 4, 2010 @ 4:39 p.m.