The concept of speed limits does not lend itself to enforcement by camera

Fran Spielman writes that the city plans to "go slow" on speed cameras in an article posted on the Chicago Sun-Times website. She quotes Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein as saying, "We may do some pilots earlier in the fall, but I don't think you’ll actually see cameras out there on the streets issuing ticketing for bad behavior until the end of the year at the earliest."

It doesn't matter, in my opinion: Any is too many.

I know, I know, these cameras are supposed to make our streets safer for pedestrians, and children especially. The City resolutely insists that these cameras are about safety, not revenue. I don't buy it.

I'm willing to revise my opinion, of course -- just as soon as a speed camera leaps down from its pole (or jumps up from the pavement -- speed cameras can be put there, too) and snatches a child to safety from the path of a speeding car.

But I respectfully submit that there is is a more fundamental objection to the entire concept of speed cameras.

Back in 2009 (when speed cameras were rejected by the legislature), I contended that determining who is a speeder is fundamentally different from determining whether someone has, or has not, blown a red light.

Running a red light is an either/or proposition. An unthinking, unblinking camera can reasonably make that call. But can it really decide when someone is really "speeding"?

"Speed limits," at least as commonly understood, are not really "limits" at all. A limit is an absolute: Try buying three items when the store says "limit two." Watch what happens when you exceed your credit limit. A "speed limit," on the other hand, is more like a target or an average. At rush hour on most Chicago arterial streets, achieving the posted "speed limit" is an impossible goal; at non-peak hours, though, on those same streets, a speed limit may be more of a posted minimum. The one thing "speed limits" are not -- generally -- are scientifically demonstrable maximums beyond which no vehicle may safely travel.

Even the new City ordinance recognizes that "speed limits" are more flexible than "limits" used in other contexts: That's why fines don't kick in (for now, anyway) until a car is observed going six miles per hour above the posted limit. But one-size-fits-all discretion is a poor substitute for the real thing.

A police officer observing traffic may see that traffic is moving safely and smoothly at 37... 38... maybe even 39... 40 mph... and choose not to enforce a 30 mph limit. A police officer observing traffic on that same street on an icy Winter's day may see that it is unsafe to drive at even 20 mph -- and pull over a motorist who tries. A driver can be ticketed under §11-601(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code for "driving too fast for conditions." ("The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed... when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.")

A police officer has training, judgment and discretion. The most advanced unthinking, unblinking eye has none of these. Programming is not discretion.

Nor, thank you, are the "three levels of review" (promised by Commissioner Klein) any substitute for the discretion of a police officer on the scene. According to the linked Sun-Times article, Klein says that any picture obtained by a speed camera would be subject to review by its operator; "by IBM, which has a contract with the city’s Department of Revenue and Finance and by the city’s Department of Transportation," all before a ticket is issued.

Cynics will claim that this merely creates multiple opportunities for the city to weed out potential tickets against cars registered to Politician A, while allowing tickets to be spit out for Non-Clouted Citizens B through Z, all of whom were "keeping up with traffic."

When a police officer pulls over a 'pace car' it has a remarkable effect on the traffic that had been "keeping up": It slows down. Even if the stopped driver gets a "pass" from the officer (whether because of clout, a fetching smile, or a plausible sob story), the purpose of slowing traffic -- the safety purpose -- has been achieved. But when the flash goes off 20 times and only 19 tickets are issued? I would expect that City will want to be particularly vigilant against this possible abuse -- but I don't know how the City can ever hope to protect itself against this possibility.

And there's one thing more. While a police officer can issue a ticket as well as any camera, he or she would not have to be a mute, impotent witness to a child being run down: A police officer could pull a child to safety from the path of a speeding car.

I suppose nothing can deter the City of Chicago from proceeding with the installation of cameras. But I have to admit to just a hint of amusement at a suggestion made by Edward McClelland on the NBC5 Ward Room blog. He suggests:

[I]ndex parking, speeding and red-light camera tickets to income. If you earn less than $20,000 a year, you pay $20. If you earn between $20,000 and $50,000, you pay $40. If you earn between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, you pay $80. And if, like an alderman, you earn more than $100,000 a year, you pay $200. That will ensure the fines hit everyone equally hard. Since the tickets are supposed to a deterrent to speeding, we have to make sure the wealthy feel it just as much as the indigent.

It’ll be like a graduated income tax. All 50 members of the City Council are Democrats, and if there's one thing Democrats believe, it's that the rich should pay more than the poor. So I’m sure they’ll embrace this idea.

Because, remember, it's all about safety, not revenue, right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also related: Getting a clearer picture of speed cameras and other surveillance devices