Metropolitan Police Department: Hearing on Automated Photo Radar Cameras-Page 3

Ensuring the effectiveness and integrity of our automated traffic enforcement program is a goal that all of us share. And certain elements of the “Automated Traffic Enforcement Amendment Act of 2001” correspond with the steps our Department is already taking to strengthen the program. For example, the District is currently in the process of re-negotiating the contract with our vendor, Affiliated Computer Services, to switch from a per-ticket-paid fee arrangement to one that uses a fixed monthly fee. This move, I believe, will help to remove any perception that there is a financial incentive for the contractor or the District to issue more tickets.However, other elements of the proposed legislation not only would undermine the effectiveness of our photo radar program, but also could threaten traffic safety.

An example is the following section: “Where an automated traffic enforcement system is used for speeding enforcement, it shall be a defense that the speed of the offender was within 5 mph of the average speed of the flow of traffic at the time of the offense.” If I am interpreting that section correctly, it would mean that if everyone else were driving 45 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone, then I could drive 50 miles per hour and not be penalized. Besides the technical problems of trying to determine the “average speed of the flow of traffic at the time of the offense,” this type of provision sends absolutely the wrong message to motorists and to residents.

As a 33-year law enforcement veteran who has responded to far too many speeding-related crashes, this type of “everyone speeds” justification falls on deaf ears with me. More importantly, I believe it falls on deaf ears with the vast majority of DC residents, who want motorists to obey the speed limits as posted and who want our Police Department to enforce those speed limits more vigorously, not less. Ask the residents of North Capitol Street, where Ann Marie Stevenson, a senior citizen, was struck and killed by a speeding hit-and-run driver last December. Or the residents of Palisades – some of whom are hear today – where another senior citizen, Sylvia Zimmerman, was also killed by a speeding hit-and-run driver last December.

Ask those residents – and ask residents throughout the District of Columbia – whether they think the speed limits in their neighborhoods are too low. And ask them whether a dangerous speeder – someone going 15, 20, 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit – should get away with it, just because the other fools on the road at the time are engaging in the same reckless behavior. I would hope that the Public Works Committee, and the Council as a whole, will look very carefully at this legislation and its potential impact on driver behavior and traffic safety in the District of Columbia. At a time when we are finally beginning to send a very strong message – that speeding is dangerous and that it will be enforced, fairly and consistently in our city – we do not need to be undermining that message with the type of loophole provided in the proposed legislation.

Traffic safety is a major issue for the District of Columbia today – and it will only grow in importance in the future. The most recent projections suggest that traffic in our region will increase by 40 percent over the next 20 years, but that road construction will grow by only 9 percent. If experience is any guide, District residents can expect more congestion, more frustration, and potentially more aggressive driving on our streets, as a result of these trends. In these challenging times, with increased demands on the Metropolitan Police Department as a whole, automated traffic enforcement allows us to address our citizens’ concerns about unsafe driving – and to do so without having to take officers from neighborhood patrols or other critical assignments. This is a classic “win-win” situation. And with the Council’s continued leadership and support, I believe we can achieve even greater traffic safety results in the future.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.