I find it ironic that Dave Stroup’s Sept. 4 article “D.C. on Speed” appears in the same issue as an article regarding an injury to a fellow student due to a careless and speeding driver (“Student hit by Mercedes SLK,” News).
While I take issue with Stroup’s factually and legally unfounded assertion that Attorney General Ashcroft is hiding “cameras in smoke detectors,” it is his closing editorialization-”the system is flawed”-that is inappropriate in a news article. A system of cameras and other speed and traffic monitors does nothing more than the task of police officer-enforce the law when people break the law in the officer’s view in a public place. As with a police officer’s testimony and evidence of speeding or other traffic violations, the evidence in camera-enforced cases is subject to questioning and rebuttal evidence in court. Accordingly, it is not surprising that at least one court dismissed a suit challenging such a camera-enforcement system.
I doubt that if Stroup suffered injuries because of a hit-and-run driver and a camera caught the incident, he would argue that camera-generated evidence is “flawed” or that the system was inaccurate. Moreover, if the District of Columbia did not care if drivers obey speed limits, why would the District invest money in “Speed Limit” signs or signs that announce camera enforcement?
Joseph J. Sperber IV, LAW ‘94
