Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard is posting a series of online essays about automated traffic-enforcement gadgetry, district money-making scams related to said gadgetry, and assorted bureaucratically-sanctioned (indeed, bureaucratically-sponsered) malfeasance — all encouraged by this, the latest trend in high-tech nanny statism.

Part 1: “Inside the District’s Red Lights“

Like the film shot by red-light cameras, photo radar film is sent to a processing center run by Lockheed Martin IMS. Though the weapons manufacturer, whose IMS division was the largest automated enforcement vendor in the nation, sold the division to Affiliated Computer Services for $800 million, if Lockheed’s projections hold, ACS will reap $44 million from D.C.-generated tickets by 2004 (the city itself will pull in $117 million). It is at this center that the vendor elves, or ‘image specialists,’ not only develop film, but decide which pictures warrant citations. Internal Lockheed documents reveal that their camera’s success rate can be as low as 42 percent (other vendors fall as low as 33 percent) — meaning that pictures must be tossed for reasons ranging from ‘data errors’ to ‘clarity of [license] plate.’ From there, success rates drop even further. After vendors send out the tickets–which may or may not be subject to police review before being issued, depending on the city–it has been estimated by an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study that the registered owner of the vehicle–the one ticketed after a vendor matches a plate number to a DMV record–is the actual driver of the car only 72 percent of the time.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it must be noted, is one of the staunchest advocates of automated enforcement, and views the 72 percent figure as a triumph. To which any reasonable person might ask, what other law enforcement tool snags the wrong guy over one-fourth of the time, and is still considered a success?

Just to recap, consider: A private company is given police power to ticket citizens, has a monetary interest in generating as many tickets as possible, and, despite its low success rate, is often allowed to do so with minimal or no police supervision.

Part 2: “The Yellow Menace“

In Charlotte, North Carolina, WBTV found their safety conscious officials failed to install cameras at 23 of the highest-crash intersections. And in San Diego, the Red Light Camera Defense Team, a consortium of pro bono lawyers representing motorists against the city found that 12 of the 19 red-light camera intersections had three-second yellow intervals, and that Lockheed Martin IMS — our old friends from D.C.– had sought out intersections with high traffic volume, short yellow cycles, and downhill approaches — the kinds of intersections that citation-happy police officers used to call ‘cherry ponds’ or ‘duck patches.’ What the lawyers didn’t find was any evidence supporting officials’ claims that their program, like D.C.’s and Charlotte’s before it, was ‘about safety.’ Not a single one of the city’s 19 cameras was operating at one of its highest-accident sites.

On Wednesday, Labash will be taking on “The Safety Myth.”

This is all very fascinating stuff, I think. For very lazy (or very busy) people (I fancy myself a bit of each, for instance), taking off of work to make it downtown to the courthouse by 8:00 a.m. (only to wait around for a coupla’ hours), finding parking ($5-$10), filling out forms, etc. — all in order to contest a $30 traffic fine — hardly seems worth the effort; it’s far easier and more convenient to mail in the check. And the local governments who are benefitting from this dynamic must know it, too.

Safety my ass. This is a profit-making scheme; why not just propose a traffic tax, which people like me would surely fight against?

Oh yeah. Because that would be transparent legislation.

[related: see Reason’s most recent “Daily Brickbat“, where you’ll find this little dollop of good news: “How well do those cameras that automatically ticket speeders and red-light runners work? Very well, if you don’t care who gets the ticket. When license plate numbers are obscured or not clearly visible, District of Columbia police have been guessing at what the plate reads, and sending out tickets accordingly. Such tickets can only be voided with the police chief’s approval.”]