Radar technology alarming; we might as well accept it

  • William Raspberry / Washington Post columnist
  • Thursday, August 9, 2001 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — Radar cameras have come to the nation’s capital, and I don’t like it.

And before you get the idea that I’m one of those habitual-speeder scofflaws, upset that I’ll finally have to begin obeying the city’s speed laws, let me tell you that the prospect of reducing the number of dangerous scofflaws is about the only thing I do like about the new program.

You’ve heard of the technology, no doubt. Photo-radar devices, usually mounted on police cars, are rigged to take pictures of vehicles that move too fast through certain checkpoints. The devices then print out pictures of the speeding vehicle, along with location, time, recorded speed and corresponding fine. The tickets will be mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner.

That, as they say, is the good news. Here’s the bad. The radar cameras are purchased and operated — and the tickets issued — by Lockheed Martin IMS. Lockheed Martin has donated the five cruisers (at about $100,000 each) being used in the first phase of the program. As I understand it, it is a Lockheed employee, not a cop, who will show up in court in the unlikely event you contest a ticket.

And how, you may be wondering, does Lockheed Martin get paid for this substantial investment? The company will get $29 for every ticket paid.

Now you think about that: A private, for-profit company with a direct financial interest not in safety but in issuing — and collecting on — tickets.

It is an extension of the problem that has long bothered me about the way the District of Columbia (among other jurisdictions) handles traffic enforcement: as a cash cow.

Ostensibly, parking restrictions are designed to facilitate traffic flow, ensure turnover of metered spaces, and other good things. Too often, though, the enforcement seems calculated primarily to produce revenue. Similarly with other enforcement. I’ve seen police officers and parking-enforcement people lurking in wait for the motorist who fails to come to an absolute stock-still stop at a stop sign or for the red flag to pop up on the meter. Is this about safety? Is this about turning over parking spaces? No, it’s about money. And it is the reason hardly anyone believes cops and meter maids aren’t operating on a quota system.

But at least the cops and meter maids get paid even if you and I obey the law to the absolute letter. Lockheed Martin doesn’t, and that’s a huge worry for me.

So is the difficulty in fighting tickets issued by machines. I mean, what judge is going to believe you and not the emotionless machine? Besides, what sort of witness are you going to make when you don’t even remember the alleged infraction that produced the ticket that arrives in the mail several days later?

And is the Lockheed Martin rep who does have the records of the event likely to admit even the remotest possibility that his machine might be a little off? Not if the company revenue stream depends on collecting the fine.

What this means is that most of us will do what we already do in the case of tickets for infractions we think we didn’t commit: We pay the tickets rather than undertake the inconvenience of contesting them.

Unless, of course, the penalty is too great — either lots of money or license-threatening "points" — in which case the incentive structure shifts. We’ll contest, even if we know we’re guilty, in hope that the cop won’t show up or that the judge will be in a generous mood, or something.

Which is why the operators of our fancy new system won’t issue points — or even serious fines except in the most egregious cases. They wouldn’t want to clutter up the courts or otherwise reduce the likelihood of getting paid.

Still, I’m not comfortable saying no to the technology itself. Old-fashioned radar has problems, too, but I certainly don’t think our highways would be safer without it. What are the alternatives to technology, anyway? Would I rather see a cop speeding up North Capitol Street in pursuit of a speeding motorist or see one of those Lockheed Martin-supplied Crown Victorias parked at North Capitol and Michigan?

And would I rather see lives lost to speeders, when they might have been saved through the use of annoying radar cameras?

Of course not. To paraphrase what has been said in another context, if technology is inevitable, you may as well sit back and enjoy it.

William Raspberry can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200 or willrasp@washpost.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Feb. 15

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Rivian, based in Irvine, Calif., has introduced its new R2 models, smaller and more affordable SUVs. (Rivian)
Editorial: Open electric vehicle market to direct sales

Legislation would allow EV makers to sell directly to customers, making lease or purchase easier.

Eco-nomics: Climate change is making insurance a risky bet

Keeping home insurance affordable amid climate change will take adaptation to threats and broader efforts.

Comment: Keeping health care fair, affordable as costs rise

Bills in the state Senate would look to control costs and keep decisions in the hands of providers.

Comment: Proposal takes a swipe at credit card swipe fees

State legislation would exempt taxes and gratuities from the fees that credit card firms charge businesses.

Forum: State church leaders call for compasion for immigrants

Scripture repeatedly instructs us to love our neighbor and show the stranger hospitality.

Forum: Support state legislation to reform policing, corrections

One bill would harmonize standards for agency leadership; another would clarify review of corrections facilities.

The Buzz: When you gotta boogie, best to shake it off, kid

A pasquidadian review of the week’s news.

People walk adjacent to the border with Canada at the Peace Arch in Peace Arch Historical State Park, where cars behind wait to enter Canada at the border crossing Monday, Aug. 9, 2021, in Blaine, Wash. Canada lifted its prohibition on Americans crossing the border to shop, vacation or visit, but America kept similar restrictions in place, part of a bumpy return to normalcy from coronavirus travel bans. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)
Editorial: U.S. and Canada better neighbors than housemates

President Trump may be serious about annexing Canada, but it’s a deal fraught with complexities for all.

Schwab: If you’re OK with foreign aid cuts, guess who’s next

At some point, if they haven’t already, Trump’s and Musk’s cuts will hit all but a very elite few.

Poor planning behind Snohomish PUD rate increase

It did not take long in 2025 for the Snohomish Public Utility… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.