Skip to content

Dangerous Drivers Declare Themselves Above the Law

Today's Wall Street Journal reports on the extraordinary lengths that a certain breed of driver will go to in order to avoid culpability for speeding and red-light running. With the use of automated enforcement cameras on the rise, some motorists are making it abundantly clear that they see themselves as above the law:

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports on the extraordinary lengths that a certain breed of driver will go to in order to avoid culpability for speeding and red-light running. With the use of automated enforcement cameras on the rise, some motorists are making it abundantly clear that they see themselves as above the law:

Drivers — many accusing law enforcement of using spy tactics to trap
unsuspecting citizens — are fighting back with everything from pick
axes to camera-blocking Santa Clauses. They’re moving beyond radar
detectors and CB radios to wage their own tech war against detection,
using sprays that promise to blur license numbers and Web sites that
plot the cameras’ locations and offer tips to beat them.

The scofflaws raise the usual objections, namely that enforcement cams are used to raise revenue. The Journal cites a recent study that appears to bolster that claim:

But a study in last month’s Journal of Law and Economics concluded
that, as many motorists have long suspected, “governments use traffic
tickets as a means of generating revenue.” The authors, Thomas Garrett
of the St. Louis Fed and Gary Wagner of the University of Arkansas at
Little Rock, studied 14 years of traffic-ticket data from 96 counties
in North Carolina. They found that when local-government revenue
declines, police issue more tickets in the following year.

I won’t dispute the conclusions, but I think the whole premise is off-base. The way to judge the effectiveness of traffic enforcement is not to measure the relationship between tickets and government revenues. You have to measure whether it makes people safer.

New York City’s experience with automated enforcement may be limited, but the results of its red-light cam trial program speak for themselves. Even New York state’s most committed opponent of automated enforcement, Assembly Transportation Committee chair David Gantt, agreed on the usefulness of red light cams in a bill he introduced last year (his motives, it must be said, were questionable):

Red light camera systems are aimed at helping reduce a major safety problem at urban and rural intersections, a problem that is estimated to produce more than 100,000 crashes and approximately 1,000 deaths per year in the United States.

So, when do you suppose we’ll see the Journal headline “Traffic Cameras Save Lives”?

Photo of Ben Fried
Ben Fried started as a Streetsblog reporter in 2008 and led the site as editor-in-chief from 2010 to 2018. He lives in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn, with his wife.

Comments Are Temporarily Disabled

Streetsblog is in the process of migrating our commenting system. During this transition, commenting is temporarily unavailable.

Once the migration is complete, you will be able to log back in and will have full access to your comment history. We appreciate your patience and look forward to having you back in the conversation soon.

More from Streetsblog New York City

Opinion: Sean Duffy’s ‘Golden Age’ of Dangerous Streets

Ethan Andersen
December 15, 2025

‘I’m Always on the Bus’: How Transit Advocacy Helped Katie Wilson Become Seattle’s Next Mayor

December 12, 2025

Watchdog Wants Hochul To Nix Bus Lane Enforcement Freebies for MTA Drivers

December 11, 2025

More Truck Routes Are Coming To A Street Near You

December 11, 2025

Upstate County’s New Bus Service Will Turn A Transit Desert Into A Rural Network

December 11, 2025
See all posts