OPINION: Speed Cameras story ain’t over yet

The fallout of Ontario’s ban on speed cameras

By Katharine Lake Berz
Special to the Star

Katharine Lake Berz is a frequent contributor to the Toronto Star. She writes about the impact of major national and international issues on individual lives.

[ Access the Toronto Star article directly -> SPEED CAMERA]

We are bringing together Canadians from different backgrounds and experiences to tackle pressing issues facing our country. We hope these unconventional pairings will bridge divides and spark inspiration for how to make Canada a better place for everyone.

[Pamela Fuselli is president and CEO of Parachute, a national injury prevention charity.
Howard Sapers is executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Ontario is tearing down its speed cameras, and the fight over safety and surveillance is only getting louder. Premier Doug Ford calls the cameras a taxpayer “cash grab” that don’t improve safety and unfairly ticket vehicle owners instead of drivers.

Yet police and pediatric experts say the evidence is undeniable: cameras slow drivers and save lives. They’re urging the government to rethink a move they fear will make streets more dangerous. More than 20 Ontario mayors have asked Ford to fix and expand speed camera programs rather than remove them, warning a total ban would “reverse years of progress on safety” and “endanger lives.”

While the province has passed legislation requiring municipalities to remove speed cameras by Nov. 14, the debate over protection versus privacy is sharply divided. Pamela Fuselli, president and CEO of Parachute, a national injury prevention charity, argues automated speed enforcement prevents death and injury on the roads where it happens most. Howard Sapers, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, fears erosion of privacy and fairness. Both believe Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live and walk. What divides them is whether automated cameras are the right way to make that happen.

Pamela Fuselli: Speed cameras are a proven solution to a known problem: speed kills.

Speed is a factor in one in four road deaths in Canada. When limits go up, fatal crash rates go up. When speeds come down, pedestrian-vehicle collisions fall 28 per cent and serious and fatal injuries drop 67 per cent.

Police are stretched thin. That’s where automated enforcement comes in — because it works. A SickKids study found Toronto’s cameras cut aggressive driving and speeding by almost half.

Cameras enforce the law consistently. They don’t care whether you’re rich or poor. They apply the same rules to everyone. And they target real speeding: The trigger is 11 kilometres above the posted limit.

If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed.

Howard Sapers: I don’t take issue with the premise that speed and fatalities are linked. I want our streets safe. I drive them, too. I worry about how this technology is used, how intrusive it can be, the privacy risks, the unintended uses of video feeds or still images and how decisions get made about where these systems get installed.

There are mobile, fixed and point-to-point systems. In some jurisdictions, cameras end up in areas already over-policed, communities identifiable by race or social status. Who is the camera pointed at, and why?

Where does the footage go? Who stores it? Who sees it? Could those feeds be used in other ways, beyond traffic enforcement? Could licence plates be recorded even if a car isn’t speeding, allowing movement to be tracked throughout someone’s day?

I was walking down Bay Street in Toronto yesterday, and I tried to spot all the video cameras I walked by. We already live with a tremendous amount of passive surveillance. When the state does it, there is an obligation not to violate people’s expectations of privacy.

Fuselli: Municipalities are using crash data to decide where cameras go, focusing on places where crashes and speeding are happening. They pilot them, measure the reduction and adjust.

Unfortunately, higher-speed roads are often in lower-income areas. That’s a bigger equity issue in terms of housing and access to resources that we need to address. Cameras respond directly to where the risk is.

You raise an interesting question, Howard. When you’re in public, is there an expectation of privacy?

Sapers: There is an expectation of privacy from the state. If there’s a fixed camera clearly marked, that’s something. But the state should also make clear what happens to those images. Is it live-feed or only triggered the moment you go over the speed limit? Is it used to track licence plates at every pass? If somebody wanted to figure out how I spent my day, could they see where I travelled, even though I hadn’t broken any law?

We can reduce speed through road design and traffic calming that affect everyone equally, not by singling out individual drivers. We should not simply trade one social harm for another.

Fuselli: I agree that there are many other ways we can reduce speed. But speed cameras are highly effective.

A small speed reduction makes a huge difference. A pedestrian hit at 50 km/h is almost six times more likely to be killed than at 30. Lower speeds save lives.

Speed cameras address a known social harm — speeding — not a hypothetical one. There is no evidence speed cameras are being used to track everyone’s licence plates. They only capture vehicles going over the trigger speed. And the ticket goes to the car, not to the driver.

Sapers: Which is another problem. We don’t actually know who’s paying. If I’m driving your car and you get the ticket, that’s not fair.

Fuselli: I’ll be sure you’re not taking my car again.

Sapers: My point is we are both talking about potential harm — speeding is potential as well. I don’t think one is any less significant than the other.

Fuselli: We have data on the crashes and the injuries and deaths that have actually happened, so it’s not just potential. We have global research that shows that automated speed enforcement lowers speed. And lowering speed lowers those injuries.

Sapers: There are also lots of examples of police surveillance gone wrong, or intrusions into privacy, of video being appropriated. We’re seeing this right now particularly at our borders. We’re seeing the federal government tabling legislation that would have given Canada Post the legal right to read mail under certain conditions. This is not some remote possibility.

Fuselli: There’s no evidence that speed cameras have been used for surveillance.

Sapers: But neither of us knows exactly where those images go, how they’re stored or how they’re shared. Police have previously used technology to monitor cellphones in public spaces until courts ruled it unconstitutional. I am not being alarmist to raise the issue.

Fuselli: Then let’s have transparency about what data is collected and how it’s used. But don’t dismiss a proven safety tool because of a hypothetical misuse.

Sapers: I also understand why people are suspicious about government “cash grabs.” When speed limits drop and cameras appear soon after, it can feel like the goal is revenue, not safety. In my own neighbourhood in south Ottawa, I scratch my head. I don’t see major crashes there.

But revenue isn’t what worries me most. Safety and privacy are.

Fuselli: Howard, if speed cameras only did what they’re supposed to — catching licence plates going over the limit — would that be OK with you?

Sapers: It’s also about why and where the cameras are placed, what type they are and which direction they’re pointed. My bottom line is that new technology that collects information about people as they go about their day deserves healthy skepticism. Canadians need to pay attention to their digital dust, not just for law enforcement, but to prevent identity theft and other misuse.

Do I have any problem with finding safe, legal ways to reduce speed and prevent accidents on our streets? Of course not. But we shouldn’t protect safety by giving up privacy. We all have an interest in both.

__________________
Opinion
Fuselli’s perspective is safety and injury prevention, while Sapers’ position is to protect civil liberties. Therefore, Fusilli takes a more pragmatic position looking to safeguard the physical well being of citizens, whereas Sapers takes a more esoteric or philosophic stand where he wants to protect the privacy of citizens.

The purpose of speed camera is to safe lives not safeguard democracy. Sapers certainly is justified in his goal of protecting the liberties of individual citizens. Saper’s postion may be a little like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Protect people’s privacy, mean while violate them physically.

Fusilli presents a case based on statistics and data. Speeding injures and sometimes kills, FULL STOP. 

Both commentators are guilty of making sweeping generalizations in hopes that the sweep nail their opinions. For example, Sapers saying that cameras end up in areas already over-policed is a generalization that has no basis in fact. Fusilli is as guilty in claiming that municipalities higher speed roads are often in lower-income areas, a rather irrelevant piece of information.

Both commentators have valid opinions, though as I support speed cameras, I see Fusilli’s statements as having more validity and value. However, she handles Sapers opinions with kid gloves when she acknowledges that there are other ways to reduce speed, road design, traffic calming devices but yielding to Sapers’ position with this has no value nor is it practical. Speed camera as an efficient and cost effective means to slow speeding drivers.

Sapers argues wrongful punishment of people with cameras that universally nab speeders. He misses the point. The cameras a not intend to be socially selective of certain citizens; their intent is to slow traffic by punishing speed violators. Nothing wrong with that.

Though we lean toward Fuselli’s opinions and arguments, we must acknowledge Sapers has a valid position when he questions the accountability and transparency as to how the camera images are used. 

These a valid questions: who gets these photos? Why? How are the photos used? Are vehicle owners charged erroneously by lending their vehicles to a lead-footed driver? Very valid questions but missing the mark.

The validity of speed cameras may not have any justification if one is worried about invasion of privacy. They do that. However, the photos are taken only by speeding vehicles triggering the speed limit for which the camera is set. Abide by the law, and your privacy is never invaded, break the law, and you’re on photographed.

Remember, Premier Ford opposes speed camera as municipal cash grabs. One, no cash is grabbed if drivers do not break the speed limit. Two, if punishing speed violators with financial punishment is a cash grab, then the courts are guilty of a lot of unjustifiable cash grabbing.

The bottom line in all this is do not speed. Otherwise, there’s a lot of hot air being bandied about with no validity or value to our law abiding citizens.

____________