There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize the “new”government of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. You could criticize them forcampaigning against P3 hospitals, then letting them go ahead. You couldcriticize them for saying they’d protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, thenallowing development to go ahead. You could criticize them for campaigningon major new spending commitments, and then claiming to be surprised by thesize of the deficit. You could criticize them for . . . but, I’d really betterstop myself before I run out of space on the page.
One thing I don’t want to criticize them for is for toying withthe idea of returning photo radar to Ontario’s roads. Sure, I could mentionthat they didn’t campaign on the issue last fall, or in 1999. I could pointout that they freely joined with the Mike Harris Tories in criticizing photoradar when it was first introduced (indeed, there are some lovely examples ofcurrent Finance Minister Greg Sorbara waxing poetic in opposition to photoradar). But, I’m not going to do that either, because I sincerely hope thatthe Dalton gang does reintroduce photo radar.
There are legitimate reasons to support photo radar. Some ofthose reasons relate to safety and some of them relate to money. Since theopponents of photo radar like to deride it as “a cash grab,” let’s deal withthe money issue first. Mark Arsenault, a spokesperson for the CanadianAutomobile Association, has said that photo radar is nothing more than “atax on motorists.” The easiest way to dispense with this criticism is with agiant “So what?” The province clearly needs additional revenue (due to theaforementioned fiscal deficit, and a whole series of social needs that arecrying out for attention). Other than by reversing some of the Harrisites’ taxcuts to corporations and wealthy individuals, I can’t really think of abetter source of revenue than fining people who voluntarily choose to breaktraffic laws. If you’d rather not pay, the solution is breathtakinglysimple: don’t drive faster than the posted speed limit.
I haven’t decided what I think of the strategic wisdom of DaltonMcGuinty’s decision to openly say that his newfound fondness for photo radarstems from the fact that, “It’s a revenue generator, absolutely.” The dangerof emphasizing the fiscal rationale is that it will make it politicallyattractive for a future government to gain points by killing it (again).While, photo radar most certainly is a good way to raise money, it is surelymuch much more than that.
I commuted to Toronto for part of the time that photo radar vansdotted the sides of our 400 series highways (and, no, I never received aphoto radar ticket, although I’ve certainly had a few “regular” speedingtickets). People drove slower then, and that was a good thing. Higher speedsincrease both stopping times and reaction times. They increase thelikelihood of accidents and also the magnitude of collisions when theyoccur. And, when the “flow of traffic” requires people to travel at 120 kmper hour merely for self-preservation, they can make driving on majorhighways an even more harrowing experience than it needs to be for manydrivers.
It has been suggested that photo radar doesn’t do anything tosolve other traffic violations. It won’t catch people who, for example,follow too closely or change lanes recklessly in order to get ahead of you.But, we wouldn’t criticize a cure for cancer on the grounds that it didnothing to deal with male pattern baldness, would we? People committingthose other traffic offenses do so because they are in a hurry, and they areusually speeding as well. Moreover, by freeing police officers from themundane task of aiming a radar gun toward passing cars, photo radar couldactually increase their ability to crack down on these other offenses.
The objection to photo radar that puzzles me the most is theidea that it is “an invasion of privacy.” I suppose that, in the hands of aJohn Ashcroft figure, it could be used to maliciously track the movements ofevery driver in the province, whether they were speeding or not. But, thereare already so many ways that people can be tracked (from debit andcredit card records to pervasive security cameras), stopping photo radar isn’t going to stop that particular conspiracy theory from becoming a reality.Indeed, there is every possibility that any tracking system could be usedfor positive ends, such as following the trail of child abductors.
So, as much as I dislike the McGuinty government’s record sofar, I don’t put its flirtation with photo radar on my list of concerns. Let’s get the system up and running as soon as possible, so we can beginrealizing its positive effects on our finances and public safety, and get onwith criticizing them for their broken promises.