Traffic enforcement is one of the leading responsibilities of law enforcement officers. Speed enforcement is perhaps one of the leading issues within that of traffic enforcement. However, one prevalent problem exists in the enforcement of speed amongst our law enforcement officers. In order for a police officer to ensure that civilians are properly abiding by the speed limit regulations, a police officer needs to be present and witness the infraction first hand. In today’s tough economic times the number of police officers on the streets is in decline and the importance of traffic enforcement is decreasing due to the limited available resources available to law enforcement. A solution may have been developed that can help in the enforcement of speeding motorists, yet make available police officers to focus on more pressing concerns. The Automated Speed Enforcement System (ASE), has been developed and tested in recent times in Europe. Due to recent economic this same system may very easily find itself being utilized in our society.
The Automated Speed Enforcement system utilizes “one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of vehicles traveling at speeds above a defined threshold” [1]. “Images captured by the ASE are processed and reviewed in an office environment and violation notices are mailed to the registered owner of the identified vehicle” [1]. Working much like red light cameras, the ASE can regulate speeds of motorists in designated areas without the need of a police officer by issuing fines for speed violations and creating a deterrence effect.
The ASE, like most technological advancements in law enforcement, will most likely be met with opposition and controversy. One such argument already made brings forth the fact that a police officer is not present, and the ASE does nothing to physically stop a motorist from speeding [2]. Another argument questions the motives of cities implementing the system and where exactly the ASE can be and will be used [2]. While these are valid arguments, I believe they do not have the weight to offset the benefits the ASE can yield. While it is true a police officer is not present and the ASE does not have the ability to physically stop a motorist from speeding, I believe the deterrence effect the ASE creates would help to lower the number of speeding motorists in designated areas. Additionally, without the ASE and a police officer being absent there is nothing that deters motorists from speeding, as opposed to at least the deterrence the ASE offers. As for the concern regarding when and where the ASE can be deployed, I feel some simple regulations or assurances can bring about the most benefits. If the ASE were to be deployed in random stretches or highways or city streets I feel the ASE would join red light cameras with the intentions of cities to simply earn more money from hard working citizens. If the ASE were to be only deployed in approved locations for specific reasons I feel it could be ensured that the ASE was truly being used for public safety and traffic enforcement rather than a money making operation. Limiting ASE’s to school and construction zones, where motorists are already supposed to reduce their speed, would further add a deterrence factor to such zones and a punishment would be in place for motorists disobeying speed limits despite the absence of a police officer.
Still a technology that has yet to be commonly utilized in our society, I feel we will soon find Automated Speed Enforcement systems throughout our roadways. However, until the system is actually put into place the arguments for and against such a system remain simply theory and speculation. Unforeseen factors may present themselves once such a system is implemented in our community, but as it stands now I feel the ASE is a viable system that would aid in the deterrence of speeding violations in certain areas, and would help to increase safety issues surround areas such as construction and school zones in relation to passing motorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment