Editorial: Common sense on photo radar

Last year 200 people died in Clark County in traffic-related deaths. Of these deaths, 70 involved people speeding, according to the state Office of Traffic Safety.

Because someone dies nearly every other day in an automobile accident, the public likely becomes numb to these tragedies, dismissing them as just one more traffic accident. It's important to note, though, that there were fewer homicides in Clark County -- 161 murders in 1997 -- than the number of people who died in traffic accidents.

But those who die in traffic accidents simply aren't statistics, they are people who may be your neighbor or even a co-worker. They might be Dixon and Gloria Dove, a married couple in their 70s who were killed in November 1995, when one of two cars drag racing on West Charleston Boulevard struck the Doves' car as it tried to leave the parking lot of a nursery.

It is somewhat surprising, in an age when everyone talks about victims and how their rights should be protected, that most of the attention is on passing legislation so victims should be given either restitution or a chance to testify before sentencing. Although these laws are important, much of the focus is on what happens after someone is killed.

Wouldn't it make sense to also take steps to reduce the possibility of a death occurring in the first place? A plan is being advocated to get people to slow down, reducing the likelihood of deadly traffic accidents.

Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone is sponsoring a proposal that would allow photo cameras to be installed in the valley within six months. As the Sun's Adrienne Packer reported recently, the photo radars would be placed in school zones, situated along roads where people tend to speed and used at dangerous intersections where people usually run red lights.

In the case of intersections, the camera would take two photographs of every vehicle that enters an intersection after the traffic light has turned red. The citation would then come in the mail showing a photograph of the driver and the car's license plate number. Under Malone's plan, if the owner of the vehicle wasn't the driver, he would have to identify who was driving.

The bottom line is that Malone wants to change the behavior of those who drive recklessly. Obviously if they don't see a police car around, irresponsible drivers are more likely to speed and run red lights. If they suspect that a hidden camera might be capturing them on film breaking the law, though, they'll think twice.

At the same time it's reasonable to be concerned about the potential abuse of this technology. So if it is implemented it should be only on a trial basis at first. Even then it should be restricted, only placed in school zones and the most dangerous intersections. There also should be a sign preceding each place where the photo radar is in place, warning drivers that their speed will be measured by radar.

In an ideal world, where Andy Taylor is sheriff of a small community, there is no need for photo radars. People observe the laws and there isn't a need for new technologies to catch people breaking the law. But Las Vegas is far removed from the fictional television town of Mayberry, N.C., where everybody knows each other by their first name. Las Vegas is a rapidly expanding city with far too many drivers who are engaged in speeding and reckless driving.

It is a shame this technology has to even be considered. But the reality is a restricted trial of photo radar's benefits should be tested to see if it deters reckless drivers. If it's found to be a success during the trial, it should be allowed to continue if a vote of the people approves it.

It's time the government steps in and tries a pilot project to see if a preventive measure will reduce the needless deaths resulting from traffic accidents as long as appropriate safeguards to protect people's right of privacy are in place.

archive