On a recent month-long trip to Holland I received a speeding ticket that cost me 50 euros. I like to think that a radar detector would have warned me of the speed camera but I might have had trouble bringing it into the European Union. While I know exactly what speed the camera thought I was going and the location I received the ticket, I can safely say that the ticket did not act as a deterent. Why? There is a dirty little secret in Holland and the rest of the world - a lot of people speed, especially on the highways between cities because it reduces the driver’s time on the road. In Holland it is uncommon to see law enforcement outside of cities. They seem to focus their efforts in the areas where they are needed and this is a good thing. With this in mind, I paid the ticket and not just because I would get arrested the next time I entered The Netherlands. I paid the ticket because in Holland’s case, their use of cameras is effective. The camera that got me was on the edge of Rotterdam and I later found they had clear warning signs telling drivers that a camera was just ahead. You see, they don’t seem to care what your speed is on the open highway but they do expect you to slow down as you enter cities and this is exactly the place people should adhere to posted speed limits.

Traffic enforcement cameras are not a big problem in the United States yet and in those places where they have been deployed, violators have had some success challenging the tickets on several grounds including device accuracy. I do not support the use of enforcement cameras in cases where revenue generation is their primary goal and therefore, I do not support the use of traffic enforcement cameras to catch speeders on open highways. After all, speeding is not a major contributor to highway traffic accidents. Allow me to repeat that last statement - speeding is not a major contributor to highway traffic accidents. How do I know? Just a few years ago, the federal government decided that everyone in the U.S. should not drive faster than 55 miles per hour. With much fanfare and the expense of replacing hundreds of thousands signs, America was declared a safer place. After a couple years a suprising thing was discovered, driving at speeds in excess of 55 m.p.h was not causing more accidents. And so, the speed limits were increased nationwide.

I do believe that placing enforcement cameras at problem intersections and issuing tickets for moving violations such as running a stop sign is a useful application of the technology. These killer intersections are found in cities across the country and there is no excuse for running a red light or a stop sign. More important, there is a distinct difference between driving 80 m.p.h. on the open highway and running a stop sign, a red light, or speeding through an intersection within a city’s limits. The latter act is reckless because city driving is naturally a slower affair and definitely a more complex task. People slow their vehicles to turn and traffic merging is very common making high speeds and a lack of attention dangerous.

America being what it is and governments being what they are, the deployment of automated traffic devices in the U.S. is bound to increase over the coming years. While I am sure that many will be deployed responsibly to reduce traffic accidents, experience tells me that many, many more will be deployed as revenue generating devices. This raises the question of accuracy. It is obviously in a city or county’s interest to collect as much money as possible for traffic infractions since this act grows a city’s law enforcement budget. Law enforcement agencies do not typically capture the entire ticket amount but they get a nice cut. This is the same method of operation used today in the drug war. Bust a user, get his car, house, and other significant property such as cash.

There will be prominent and loud explanations concerning traffic safety and reduced taxes since a camera involves a large, initial investment with small ongoing maintenance costs. The camera investment is smaller over time than training and fielding additional police officers, paying for their insurance, and funding their retirement. The net - they will earn more revenue per law enforcement dollar they expend. But ultimately, government never shrinks and rarely does the tax burden lessen.

Like many of you, I have a problem with this. My hackles rise at the thought of thousands of cameras placed around each state, on highways, for the purpose of ticketing speeding motorists. Just as I would have a problem with my bank eliminating all human tellers in favor of ATMs, I am against the deployment of traffic enforcement cameras for the sole purpose of ticketing speeders. Fortunately, there is a solution. While researching traffic enforcement cameras as a result of my ticket in The Netherlands I came across a novell approach to beating the cameras. The company is called PhantomPlate and they offer several unique solutions that render license plates unreadable when photographed. They sell a couple of license plate covers and a spray that renders license plates unreadble to cameras at angles that cameras are commonly mounted. Best of all, the plate remains readable by humans. Pretty cool.

Note: I have not purchased any PhantomPlate products and the use of such devices may be illegal in your state. Buyer beware.

I would love to hear comments on PhantomPlate, Inc.