March 21, 2008...2:04 pm
Friday Free-for-All: Speed Cameras
Jump to Comments
According to todays Washington Post, the the Md House passed Governor’s Speed Camera bill and it is close to becoming the law of the land:
The speed camera bill, which was proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), allows the state to install cameras in construction areas. The measure also would authorize local governments to use cameras in school zones and in residential neighborhoods with posted speed limits less than 45 mph. Violators would be fined $40 but would not get points on their licenses.
We already have Red Light Cameras at some select local intersections. What do you think? Are you in favor of Speed Cameras?
31 Comments
March 21, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Measures like this will infuriate many, but are unfortunately necessary. People will not police themselves so the government is forced to. It would be nice if we could live in a place that didn’t require locks or cameras and the trust of your neighbor was above all, but those communities are far and few between.
March 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm
And a study from South Florida University just showed that red light cameras cause more accidents and injuries than they prevent. What do you want to bet speed cameras will have a similar effect? And, given all the politicians swearing that it’s not about revenue, it’s about safety, how quickly will those cameras be removed?
March 22, 2008 at 6:17 am
Welcome to the Communist States of America
March 22, 2008 at 10:52 am
As soon as I can question a speed camera in a court of law, I’ll support their installation. The solution is worse than the problem.
March 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I have no sympathy for speeders/red light runners. I don’t own an car….I bike and walk. I see violaters on a daily (if not hourly) basis. It’s rediculous. I was out walking my dog earlier and saw two drivers in a row both no-turn-right-on-red, run red and no use of turn signals at N. Market & E 3rd. I was furious to see that. BTW, I haven’t heard of any wrecks in Frederick directly caused by the red light cameras. Have any of you?
March 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm
My husband was out walking the dog and the dog was in front of him on a leash. They were crossing at a crosswalk with a “walk” signal. A driver went through the light and nearly ran over the dog! He yelled out the window of his car, “Watch where you are going, man!” Are you serious? This guy broke the law and endangered pedestrians. Would a red-light camera have caught this man on tape? I don’t know.
It is sad that we live in a place where people don’t understand that speed LIMITS are for safety and the smooth flow of traffic. Everyone is in such a damn hurry. I hate the idea of speed cameras, though. Is this what we’ve come to?
March 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Whatever makes people pay attention to what’s going on around them, including people and puppy-dogs.
Speed-trap cameras and red light cameras are commonly used in liberal socialist Germany, where it’s considered, if not unthinkable, then very trashy, to break laws. No, I’m not German, just been here a while. I’m from Texas.
We’re headed to Frederick to “stay a while” next week, and I enthusiastically applaud the implementation of anything allowing those not addicted to their cars, to exercise their freedom of choice, safely.
March 22, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Welcome to the Communist States of America? Puhleeze, get your facts straight.
Anyone who rented a car in the old Soviet Union–certainly in Moscow–knows that Communist countries are notorious for minimal traffic enforcement and dangerous drivers. I’m not talking driving as bad as in Rome or Mexico City, of course, but way worse than in the DC metro area.
March 22, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I don’t have stats for Frederick, but here’s some damning evidence from Howard County, the first Maryland subdivision to bring these revenue generators to the roadways:
Between the years 1997 and 2000, accidents increased at 5 of 13 intersections for which Howard County’s Department of Public Works provided statistics. Rear-end accidents increased at 7; they more than doubled at 4, tripled at one, and quintupled at one. All told, the red-light-camera intersections reported a 21 percent increase in rear-end accidents, while total accidents increased 15.9 percent. Figures for all other county intersections also show an increase in accidents, but a smaller one (a 13.4 increase in total accidents and an 8.5 percent increase in rear-end accidents).
Seems to me like HoCo values revenue over safety.
BTW, Nevada has outlawed red light and speed cameras. Guess where I’m moving later this year?
March 23, 2008 at 7:13 am
I guess bad Frederick drivers are going to run red lights no matter what. The city might as well make some money off them. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
And don’t throw those ‘increased accidents’ stats at me. I haven’t even heard of any rear-end crashes in Frederick indirectly caused by the cameras.
March 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
Cygnus, you say “the solution is worse than the problem,” but let’s talk a moment about the original question: SPEED cameras, not red-light cameras.
If we want to trot out statistics, consider the number-crunching done by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which links speeding with fully one-third of all car crash fatalities. No, they can’t directly prove speed killed each and every person–no precise number can be known–but when we’re talking nearly 500,000 dead crash victims in the last decade, it makes the “problem” of speed cameras seem comparatively less serious than the problem of deadly speeding.
We could quibble all day. My proposal would be to set speed cameras on the nation’s highways, and ticket the egregious speeders–those driving 20, 30, 40 mph over the limit. As a safeguard, you the reckless speeder would have your day in court. You could see the photo clearly showing you behind the wheel–a precondition for “arrest.”
Anyway, at least you would have your day in court. Nearly 500,000 Americans in the last decade did not get that chance. Instead of people arguing about a police state, we need to do something more to save American lives. Ignoring the problem is the worst solution possible.
March 23, 2008 at 8:23 am
Let me add: The speed limit on many local roads is clearly too low, and seems set that low just to generate revenue. I can think of many, many roads in Frederick County where the speed limit of 25, 30, or 35 mph is just dumb.
I certainly could see a persuasive argument against using speed cameras in such applications, especially when it ignores the dangers of speeding on highways.
March 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm
If you aren’t breaking the law you won’t have to be so paranoid!! Do you care about security cameras at stores? BE serious. The only reason they might cause accidents is because the violator KNOWS they just got caught and react to it! Still not the government’s fault. I’ve gotten 2 red light tickets with cameras. ….and DESERVED both of them!! And I too have witnessed pedestrians, bikers and dog walkers nearly being mowed over. For what? Even if a speed limit is too low say 35 or 25…what’s to gain by having it at say 40 or 45? Maybe 20 seconds? Frederick is a wonderful town…slow down and enjoy it!!
March 23, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Matthew:
First, assuming that NHTSA’s numbers about speeding deaths are true, if speeding was a factor in 170,000 of these deaths, that means it WASN’T a factor in 340,000 of them. Do the math. You make it sound like eliminating speeding will eliminate all 500,000 deaths. What about those who drive too slowly and cause chain reaction accidents? That’s even more of a danger on the highways.
Speed cameras or red light cameras (as far as I’m concerned, they’re one and the same) take the photo of the license plate of the vehicle that allegedly ran the red light or was going too fast through the intersection. No one is shown behind any wheel.
So a citation gets mailed to the owner of the vehicle. But! There is NO EVIDENCE that the owner of said vehicle was doing the driving!
Do cars drive themselves and speed themselves and run red lights themselves? As far as the omniscient camera knows, that’s all that happened; it has no evidence whatsoever that any given driver did so. Similarly, no weapon has ever fired itself in anger; it’s the job of law enforcement to tie a suspect to said weapon.
Just ask Senator Alex Mooney, who got sent red light tickets a few years ago after someone stole his car. He wasn’t driving, but he couldn’t prove it. He proposed a bill to ban those cameras statewide, but the legislature not surprisingly shot it down.
If I had my “day in court”, who would I face? The camera? Its operator? The staff weenie who reviews the photos? The CEO of the contractor? That doesn’t allay my 6th Amendment concerns at all, and no court has addressed that yet; only the privacy issue has been ruled on.
I do agree with you that speeds are artificially set too low in certain areas, and that certain roads (Crestwood Boulevard between New Design Road and Westview Drive, for example) are designed for speed. Few people speed on two-lane roads with twists and turns, although I can’t say no one would. But to build a county road like the tri-oval at Daytona and expect drivers not to speed on it is ridiculous.
Otherwise, you’re right, we’re at opposites again.
March 23, 2008 at 8:10 pm
whine. whine. whine.
MD banned smoking. The sky is falling. The gubmnt will be in our bedrooms. Communism is around the corner. Oh my! Well, I’m still waiting for the huge fall-out all over town - where are the restaurants going under? I eat out all the time and if anything I see more people out than I did before the ban. No fall out - just hot air from people afraid of progress.
Red light cameras .. oh no! We need to ban these because what if? what about privacy? what about what? How about getting dangerous drivers off the road and before a damned judge? If there’s a good reason that you broke the law and drove through that red light, then the judge can use his discretion and let you go. If not, then you can just pay and pay - too bad there’s no points on your license, but progress takes time. (BTW, Mooney was found not guilty)
JJP
March 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm
It’s not whining. It’s principles, which people don’t seem to have much of anymore.
And the fact that Mooney wasn’t guilty only bolsters my argument.
March 24, 2008 at 6:37 am
I’m not sure what principles you are defending. The right to spew noxious fumes in a bar or restaurant? The right to break the law by speeding or running stop lights?
If people in fact had principles, we wouldn’t need these laws. If people used discretion and didn’t smoke when those around them weren’t smoking, there wouldn’t be a smoking ban in MD (back in the old days when I guess people had principles, it was improper to smoke in public). If people followed the law and didn’t speed or didn’t run red lights, then we wouldn’t need traffic enforcement cameras. The fact is that every day our principles of self-reliance and self-government are being eroded because a minority cannot control itself - when the results are dangerous, the majority makes laws to protect the greater society. It’s not the course that I would prefer, but principles of self-reliance and individual responsibility have been on the wane for a long, long time. We have turned “freedom” upside down - if there’s no law prohibiting it, then I can do it to my heart’s content. As a result, we get more laws. There’s an old saying : “with freedom begins responsibility.”
The fact that Mooney was found not guilty proves the system works. A car registered to him ran a stop light. As the owner, he was ticketed. He got his day in court and provided the evidence that cleared him.
March 24, 2008 at 9:20 am
JJP, your arguments are spot on. Libertarians admirably embrace personal responsibility, but their system hinges on the goodwill of all, while failing to account for the tremendous disruption caused by the smallest statistical minority. Ultimately, idealized solutions don’t translate well in practice, leaving pragmatic middlegrounders like us to patch together a reasonable solution.
Cygnus, I already said: ticket only IF a camera can identify the driver. Nor did I imply that all 500,000 died because of excessive speed. Read carefully, my good man. And enjoy life out in Nevada.
March 24, 2008 at 11:01 am
My philosophy of law teacher once gave a great example of the different arguments about how government should govern us. It basically went like this:
A bridge over a canyon is out. If you drive over the bridge your life will be in danger. Should the government:
A. Do nothing, it’s up to us as reasonable adults to take care of ourselves.
B. Post warnings about the bridge, but not physically stop someone from going over the bridge if they really want to risk it.
C. Physically stop anyone from getting over the bridge by force if necessary.
This very simplistic example and is more related to the smoking argument than the red light/speed camera one. But it kind of illustrates the basic points of all these arguments. It’s not so much about smoking but how you think we should be governed.
Anywho, just thought it was interesting as it relates to recent discussion on this site. I will also direct you to this video about civility in debates. The main point is remembering what we think vs. who we are.
March 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I’m of the firm belief that it’s isn’t speed that causes accidents, it’s not paying attention. Same holds true for running red lights, really. As cars have become more powerful and easier to drive, drivers have become more and more oblivious behind the wheel, and the result is the issues under debate.
If you’re paying attention to not only what’s happening on the roads and sidewalks around you, but also to whether or not you can control the car at the speed you choose to drive it, then you’re less likely to have an accident at *any* speed.
If you’re paying attention to the lights at upcoming intersections, as well as to whether or not you’re going too fast to stop the car in time, you’re less likely to run a red light.
If the authorities insist on having these cameras, then perhaps the revenue generated by them should be put towards increasing driver education and training.
March 25, 2008 at 8:35 am
Pam, while inattention and poor judgment are undoubtedly the greatest contributors to car crashes, one cannot ignore the laws of physics.
Greater speed acting on a moving body always yields greater kinetic energy. When two cars violently collide, it generates a kinetic shockwave inside both vehicles directly proportionate to the cars’ original speed.
During a low-speed crash, people usually walk away. But a high-speed crash typically results in instant death, disfigurement, and/or disability. The cumulative impact nationwide is huge on families, taxpayers and insureds alike. What makes it a matter of public policy is the danger inattentive speeders using poor judgment pose to innocent motorists.
March 25, 2008 at 9:48 am
“What makes it a matter of public policy is the danger inattentive speeders using poor judgment pose to innocent motorists.” <– Exactly, you actually emphasized my point. If someone is not aware of the fact that their speed is too great for the surrounding conditions and for them to react to anything with which they could collide, then they are not paying enough attention. Which is why I favor increased education and training for motorists, so that they can be made aware of why and how to pay attention and make better judgements. If the necessary money to do this comes from a source such as speed cameras, then those cameras serve more of a purpose than otherwise.
March 25, 2008 at 3:52 pm
JJP:
I’m not sure what principles you are defending. The right to spew noxious fumes in a bar or restaurant?
This just in: Tobacco is a legal substance to use., and it should be the restaurant owner’s discretion as to whether it’s used or not. If it’s so bad for you, ban the sale, use, or trade of tobacco. But then you can’t tax it, can you?
The right to break the law by speeding or running stop lights?
No, my 6th Amendment right to face my accuser, which no one here has addressed.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand do-gooders at all.
March 25, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Cygnus,
I thought you were interested in principles, but instead it looks like you are just looking for excuses to legitimize your behaviour. I can only imagine your reaction when spitting on sidewalks became illegal.
It is unfortunate that MD had to ban smoking in restaurants. If the minority had used some discretion, it wouldn’t have happened.
As far as your 6th Ammendment rights go, run some red lights and I’ll bet you will meet your accuser.
JJP
March 26, 2008 at 9:39 am
This main point of the law is for the use of speed cameras in construction zones. Here is a letter sent by the MD Highway Contractors Assn. to the Baltimore Sun supporting the use of speed cameras in the work zone that explains their position:
“Every night during the paving season our crews work to repave our major highways. Nothing stands between them and traffic except a row of orange cones. Their safety depends entirely on the ability of drivers to stay in their lane and avoid hitting them. People are much better able to control their vehicles at 50 mph than at 80 mph.
State police are normally parked on site, but they cannot safely pursue speeders through a work zone without endangering workers on the ground. Speeders know this and they do not slow down.”
“Recently, two highway workers were killed by speeders while working on the Beltway in the Towson area. Several others suffered lifelong injuries.”
“At least six highway workers have been killed in Maryland this season by out of control drivers.”
“Concrete barrier protection is not practical on a repaving operation that moves several miles a night. Closing the road entirely or closing additional lanes can protect workers but produce massive traffic jams which make it impossible to deliver materials to the site.”
“Speed cameras cause an emotional reaction but they are the only effective way to provide safety to highway workers and the traveling public.”
I am not crazy about them adding the cameras “in residential neighborhoods with posted speed limits less than 45 mph” - they could have cameras practically everywhere! Really, it seems like a way just to generate revenue.
March 26, 2008 at 10:29 am
If speed cameras are posted in residential neighborhoods, there should be no exemption from tickets being given to (1) city, county or state workers, regardless of title; and (2) off-duty police officers. Furthermore, there needs to be an accompanying photo that clearly shows the driver.
March 30, 2008 at 9:41 am
JJP, I can see it now. One morning at the Frederick County Courthouse:
Me: “Mr. Camera, who was driving this car that was photographed?”
Camera:
Me: “Mr. Camera, what proof do you have that the recipient of this photograph was driving the car?”
Camera:
Me: “Mr. Camera, do you like it better in the summer or in the country?”
Camera:
Me: “No further questions.”
Unless, of course, JJP shows up as counsel to the camera.
March 30, 2008 at 11:40 am
From what I’ve read elsewhere, an infraction stemming from a speed-camera violation will result in a citation if and only if the accompanying photograph clearly establishes the identity of the driver. No blurry shots allowed. But once it’s established the car was indeed speeding and the recipient of the citation was indeed the driver, what’s the problem? C’mon Cygnus, once culpability is established, what other questions might the speeder have for his “accuser”?
I might add that I foresee lots of speeders wearing fake beards, oversize shades, and big floppy hats. And that’s the women.
March 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Naaah, Matthew, those are folks trying to get around the HOV lanes on 270.
And I’m sorry, but “first the sentence, then the evidence” still doesn’t do it for me.
March 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Cygnus,
I’m afraid you have become delusional on this topic.
I do welcome you to test the law and see if a camera actually takes the stand against you. Oh, and if this comes to pass, I also recommend you waive your right to counsel.
JJP
April 3, 2008 at 5:51 am
The Washington Times recently broke a story which showed that the current Montgomery County speed camera contract with ACS pays the contractor a per-ticket fee. This violates the intent and quite possibly the letter of the law authorizing speed cameras, which states:
“If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of Montgomery County, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid.”
The same provision exists in the new laws and no attempt has been made to close that loophole. Many Maryland lawmakers have made it clear the intent of that part of the law, and have made that part of the selling point for the speed camera laws.
If the state gives Montgomery County a pass on this, they might do so with all counties on any other inconvenient portions of the law once this system goes statewide. How can we trust those who use intrusive methods to enforce the law if they seek to circumvent the law themselves?
Leave a Reply