Every time a child en route to school is hit by a speeding car, a community stops for a moment, bemoans the pain and the anguish one driver can cause — and then moves on. Roadway construction workers shouldn’t have to put their lives on the line while on the job. That is not a level of risk anyone would willingly sign up for.
There’s much more this state and its communities can do to deter speeding on city streets and highways and to save lives — especially around school and construction zones.
Governor Maura Healey has taken up the cause in a proposal tied to the state’s annual budget that would allow the state and cities and towns to install cameras aimed at catching speeders and — perhaps even more importantly — detering potential speeders from wrecking havoc on pedestrians, especially those going to and coming from schools.
“We want to do everything we can to keep [streets] safe and reduce the likelihood of any fatalities or accidents,” Healey said after a recent legislative hearing on her budget. “School zones and construction zones make a lot of sense.”
Now with all of the surveillance cameras already in use, certainly around cities, and on virtually every doorbell in the suburbs, you’d think the idea of putting a few more where they could do some real good would be a no-brainer on Beacon Hill. License plate readers already are used to bill drivers on the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Tobin Bridge.
But, sad to say, that level of automated traffic enforcement is something akin to touching the third rail among too many in the state’s political establishment. Healey tried — and failed — to advance a similar proposal last year.
Instead, lawmakers opted for a few incremental changes — bills allowing the MBTA and regional transit authorities to install cameras on buses to catch those using or parking in bus-designated lanes and another allowing school bus-mounted cameras to catch those who illegally go around a stopped bus with its stop sign out.
The concept of using automated cameras to deter speeding is hardly new. They’ve already used by 344 communities in 26 states and have been used in New York City since 1992.
Healey’s proposal would give communities the option of installing the cameras but limit them to one automated camera per 5,000 residents. Violations in a designated school zone would have to exceed the posted speed limit by more than 6 miles per hour and by 11 miles per hour in an active construction or work zone. The law would require a warning for a first violation and $25 for a second or subsequent violation — increased to $100 for a second or subsequent violation if the offender was driving 25 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit.
While communities could recoup the cost of the installed equipment, they would be prohibited from striking any kind of deal with equipment vendors based on the number of violations or the revenue collected. And any net income would revert to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund.
In short, this is intended to enhance public safety, not be a cash cow for cities and towns intent on blanketing intersections with cameras.
Healey isn’t alone in her quest on Beacon Hill, where at least a handful of Democrats, including Senator Will Brownsberger and Representative Steven Owens, have labored for several years for similar, although wider-ranging legislation.
Privacy advocates and those concerned that the systems could be used to racially profile drivers — both traditional opponents of the automated systems — ought to be reassured by a number of provisions in both Healey’s bill and the wider-ranging legislative effort. Both emphasize that it’s the vehicle and its license plate, not its driver or passengers, who are the subject of the photograph and the bills expressly forbid the use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with the system.
Fans of the technology would expand its use to those who run red lights or block traffic intersections. And given the number of pedestrian accidents and the incidents of routine urban gridlock — they aren’t wrong. But this may be a moment when a little bit of progress on a long-festering issue is better than no progress at all.
Massachusetts does have a certain well-deserved reputation for its flagrant disregard of many attempts at traffic enforcement. Too many drivers have truly earned their Masshole designation — putting Boston atop the list of the nation’s most collision prone cities with Springfield and Worcester not far behind.
Well-placed cameras won’t slow all speeders, but if it makes even half of those speeders slow down, if it saves a handful of lives and saves others from years of pain, then it will be well worth this long overdue effort.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.