ShareThis Page
Cameras proposed to deter speeding in Pennsylvania work zones |

Cameras proposed to deter speeding in Pennsylvania work zones

Guy Wathen | Tribune-Review
A radar message sign informs drivers of their speed as they pass through a construction zone on Route 65 near Pittsburgh on Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016.

A bill awaiting action in the state Senate aims to impose $100 fines against motorists caught on camera speeding through active PennDOT and turnpike work zones.

Opponents of similar measures in other states have contended automated speed enforcement systems can be misused and sow distrust between government and citizens. But proponents say Pennsylvania legislation is about one thing: making work zones safer for construction crews and drivers alike.

“This is a bill that hopefully will encourage people through a little stick instead of carrot approach to get them to slow down,” Associated Pennsylvania Constructors Executive Vice President Bob Latham said.

Senate Bill 840, sponsored by Sens. David Argall, R-Schuylkill County, and Judy Schwank, D-Berks County, would create a five-year pilot program during which vehicles detected going 11 mph over posted speed limits in PennDOT and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission highway work zones would be automatically photographed. Images of license plates would then be used to issue the vehicle’s registered owner a $100 fine.

Turnpike and PennDOT officials support the proposal, and Jon Hopcraft, executive director of Argall’s office, said a similar law in Maryland lowered work zone speeding by 85 percent over a five-year period.

But construction zone speeding cameras have caused controversy in other parts of the country. Indiana state lawmakers in 2015 dumped an automated enforcement law over concerns that traffic cameras turn everyday travel into a ‘gotcha’ relationship between motorists and government, according to The Times of Northwest Indiana.

The Washington Post reported in 2010 that motorists in Washington, D.C., were issued nearly 15,000 camera-generated tickets at a particular work zone between mid-August and the end of October 2010, including several tickets after construction in the area concluded.

Supporters of Pennsylvania’s bill said the measure includes safeguards to protect drivers’ rights. Warning signs would appear before camera enforcement zones, and vehicle owners who face fines would be able to appeal their penalty to a hearing officer.

Appeals could be an option for owners who are fined if someone else is caught speeding in their vehicle, though Latham said he didn’t expect that issue to be widespread.

“What we’ve seen in other states is at first a number of people get ticketed, then as word gets out, people slow down and the number of citations drop,” he said.

Maryland cited about 828,000 drivers during the first 30 months it operated automated cameras.

“Assuming the Commonwealth would experience a similar number of violations, a $100 fine would generate $33.1 million annually,” a Senate Appropriations Committee report states.

The report estimates the pilot program would cost between $1.25 million and $2.25 million. Fines would go into the Motor License Fund, which pays for roads and bridges but can fund other things, including work zone safety.

Hopcraft said the legislation’s backers hope to see the Senate take up the bill after it reconvenes in Harrisburg in September.

Michael Walton is a Tribune-Review staff writer. He can be reached at 412-380-5627 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.