Free State?

[mechmike0034]

NOT!

Maryland lawmakers yesterday authorized the use of cameras (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041001852.html?hpid=topnews) to catch speeding drivers in school zones and highway work areas across the state, breaking a deadlock on the issue that had kept the cameras confined to Montgomery County in recent years.

The new legislation specifically authorizes the use of speed cameras (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=2744&m=print) anywhere in the state up to one-half a mile away from a school zone. School zone cameras can operate as late as 8pm and ticket motorists regardless of whether school is in session. It also creates a statewide freeway camera program designed to be used in so-called "work zones" where the speed limit is lowered, regardless of whether workers are actually present. On a freeway that ordinarily has a 55 MPH speed limit, for example, citations would be issued to anyone driving 57 MPH in the lowered speed zone. For-profit private companies are authorized to take charge of all aspects of the program.

Smile as you are reaching for your wallet...

[Cubsfan]

So what's the objection to these? I've heard several:

1) They aren't legal because nobody actually saw you speeding/running the light

2) A for-profit company profits

3) The states do it just for profit

I guess I don't really have a huge problem with them. Especially since these two seem aimed at slowing people down where there's people likely to get hurt. (Of course, the counterargument to that is that these are also places where the speed limit drops, which means more people will be speeding). I guess as far as cameras go, I'm pretty much OK with speed cameras, but I don't like stoplight camera.

[Daedalus]

I object to #2. Think about parking tickets. They suck. What if the person ruining your day was actually making a commission on each ticket they wrote?

[Cubsfan]

I object to #2. Think about parking tickets. They suck. What if the person ruining your day was actually making a commission on each ticket they wrote?

So do you only object to a per-ticket fee? I think that at the red light camera by my house the city pays a monthly fee for it, not a per-ticket fee.

[MrGreg]

Don't know about speeding cameras, but isn't there evidence that red light cameras actually increase accidents?

[renovation]

is this like the cameras they use on toll roads where drivers run a pay booth and they can receive a ticket in the mail if there plate is picked up by the CAMERAS?
i know in michigan the state has been legally double dipping drivers for some years now.you pay a traffic fine and for the next 2 or 3 years you can paqy a extra fee to renew your plates till the tickets fall off your record or you drop below so many points .not personal happen to me so i dont fully under stand how this works.

[Daedalus]

So do you only object to a per-ticket fee? I think that at the red light camera by my house the city pays a monthly fee for it, not a per-ticket fee.
You're saying the city is actually spending money on this? Who keeps the fines?

What I'm saying is that there's something wrong about declaring open season on Joe and Jane Public for private enterprises to profit from every little mis-step they may take. I agree with enforcing the law, but doing so should not enrichen others. I think there's a fine line here. If a company makes a speed camera and sells it, with installation, to a goverment for a fixed price, that's OK by me. But if the government contracts with a company to catch law-breakers, and then gives the company a cut of all fines levied, that's crap. That is a very dangerous incentive.

If you look around you'll see this kind of thing happening way too often, where companies make a buck at the expense of taxpayers. Stadiums are built by taxpayers so team owners can get rich selling tickets and licensing names. Taxpayers pay for police to check out every single false alarm that home security alarm systems generate (the security companies keep the monthly fees). Governments actually subsidize the opening of stores like WalMart. I'm sorry if I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the government is largely on the payroll of people with deep pockets. You think these kinds of stop light and speed limit cameras are installed without a lot of lobbying (i.e. donations, wining & dining) of government officials by the companies that make them?

[Cheesypuff]

just to play devils advocate...

why are speeding cameras bad for society? If i were a law abiding citizen driving below the speed limit all the time, I would be glad a check was there to insure my probability of getting into an accident was decreased.

[Jeffbx]

If there was a correlation between speeding & accidents, I'd agree. However, there is not. I challenge anyone to find ANY study that's NOT sponsored by an insurance company that says increased speed causes accidents.

Inattentive drivers, poor road conditions, weather and substance abuse are all direct causes of accidents. Speed has nothing to do with it - this is nothing more than a way to generate cash - it's not at ALL a safety issue.

If it WERE a safety issue, I'd challenge the municipalities who are doing this to donate all revenue to some external source, like state education. I'd bet in that case, speed enforcement would virtually disappear

[mojo]

there are higher rates to pay in construction zones and school zones. if these cameras are active in those areas when children or construction workers are not present, then it's pretty obvious that safety has nothing to do with it and that it's just a source of revenue. :thumbdown:

[Cubsfan]

You're saying the city is actually spending money on this? Who keeps the fines?


My understanding is that the city basically rents it (I think $7500/month or something like that) and keeps all ticket revenue.

[attgig]

On a freeway that ordinarily has a 55 MPH speed limit, for example, citations would be issued to anyone driving 57 MPH in the lowered speed zone.


the first article:

Under the bill, the cameras could snap photos of the license plates of cars going at least 12 miles over the speed limit in school zones between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays. A $40 ticket would then be mailed to the car owner.


so, it would have to be 67.

also interesting:

Municipalities in the county could also lose some funds because the new law limits the profit any jurisdiction receives from camera-generated tickets to 10 percent of the town or county's total revenue. All additional money would be sent to the state.


also, related to the other discussion about the private companies:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2392.asp

[Markel]

Red light cameras have been installed in a seemingly exponential increase in my area. Things just seem to be getting too Big-Brother-ish for my liking. I'm starting to wonder when someone will come up with a camera-enforced stop sign to make sure that every car comes to a complete stop. :rolleyes:

[Maarchk]

And what if the camera is off and catches you going 54 in a 55. Who stops and tells them their camera is broken? Doing this for profit makes me unhappy because they will do everything in their power to make money, not to enforce the law. They'll catch people that possibly shouldn't be caught.

And if someone gives me a ticket in a school zone at 8 pm during spring break? I should get a ticket why??? Which means my time and my money for fighting a BS ticket and they'll still scam 100 people that week and not many will fight it...

I think that's messed up.

[LPMiller]

I'm thankful they were ruled unconstitutional here. A little too 1984 to me. Also, seems unfair. You want to catch me, get off your ass.

[Cheesypuff]

If there was a correlation between speeding & accidents, I'd agree. However, there is not. I challenge anyone to find ANY study that's NOT sponsored by an insurance company that says increased speed causes accidents.

Inattentive drivers, poor road conditions, weather and substance abuse are all direct causes of accidents. Speed has nothing to do with it - this is nothing more than a way to generate cash - it's not at ALL a safety issue.

If it WERE a safety issue, I'd challenge the municipalities who are doing this to donate all revenue to some external source, like state education. I'd bet in that case, speed enforcement would virtually disappear


Ok...so if increased speed does not cause accidents, I do argue that an increased speed does cause a higher probability of injury vs a slower speed accidents.

so with that argument, i think my logic still stands...If i were a person driving the speed limit all the time, I wouldn't want somebody else driving fast and increase my probability of getting injured.

[Maarchk]

I'm thankful they were ruled unconstitutional here. A little too 1984 to me. Also, seems unfair. You want to catch me, get off your ass.

Unconstitutional against the state? Do you know the ruling? Can i toss that out if it comes to Cali? Cause that'd be nice. Right now we have red light cameras that i'm not overly excited about but not too troubled buy. As long as the yellow is at its legal minimum of 3.5 then things should be fine.

But speeding cameras without people just seems poor. What if some kid throws a baseball past me real fast???

[Jeffbx]

Ok...so if increased speed does not cause accidents, I do argue that an increased speed does cause a higher probability of injury vs a slower speed accidents.

so with that argument, i think my logic still stands...If i were a person driving the speed limit all the time, I wouldn't want somebody else driving fast and increase my probability of getting injured.

Along the same lines, can we ban big SUVs & trucks? There's a much MUCH higher chance of me being injured if I'm hit with a bigger car than I drive.

I know that's a silly example, but in all seriousness I think that with the build quality of the cars & highways today, we could safely increase the speed limits on ALL freeways & not see any increase in accidents, collision rates, injuries or insurance claims. As a matter of fact SLOWER drivers cause more of a risk of accidents than fast drivers (http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/) (see the third question). So why aren't slow drivers ticketed? Because it's not a safety issue, it's a revenue issue.

[Chgoman]

Generally the only people who win with the ticketing cameras are the company that provides them. There was a study here in California and pretty much every city except 2 that had ticketing cameras loose 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars on them. Not only are they expensive to install and maintaing, but there is a lot of miscommunitcation between the camera company and the police which results in a lot of tickets being invalidated or never being followed up on.

[guiseppewv]

I personally think this is :censored:! MD is such a money grubbing state. I am considering moving to VA.


AAs a matter of fact SLOWER drivers cause more of a risk of accidents than fast drivers (http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/) (see the third question).

Thanks for the link!