Ban the Cams! Latest News

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2876952

WTOP Beltway Poll: Traffic cameras are money machines

Thursday - 5/24/2012, 5:51am ET

Most in the D.C. area think traffic enforcement cameras are primarily revenue generators for local governments.

WASHINGTON - Nearly two-thirds of people in the Washington area believe the primary role of speed and red-light cameras is to create cash for local governments -- not to make roads safer.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed in a new WTOP Beltway Poll believe the cameras are mainly revenue generators, with little variance between respondents from Virginia, Maryland or D.C.

Only about a third of those surveyed (35 percent) believe the primary role of the cameras is to make roads safer.

The poll, conducted by Heart+Mind Strategies, also finds the most frustrating thing for commuters is traffic congestion. Twenty-seven percent cite it as the biggest frustration, followed by the amount of time wasted in traffic (19 percent).

Fourteen percent say other drivers are the most frustrating, while 10 percent cite the cost of commuting. Construction delays come in at 8 percent and public transportation times rounds out the list at 5 percent.

Four in 10 (42 percent) say their round-trip commute takes more than an hour each day, with many on the road much longer.

Ten percent have commutes of 90 minutes to two hours. Another 11 percent travel more than two hours.

Some in the region have short commutes. Thirty percent say their total commute time is less than 30 minutes, and 12 percent say it's less than 15 minutes.

D.C. residents tend to have the shortest commutes, while Virginians tend to have the longest, with Maryland in the middle.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent.

The D.C. metro phone survey was conducted among 550 adults age 18 and over, between May 11-18, 2012. This included representative samples of 200 people in Virginia, 250 in Maryland and 100 in the District.

Heart+Mind Strategies is a non-partisan market research consultancy based in Reston, Va.

WTOP's Mitchell Miller contributed to this story. Follow Mitchell and WTOP on Twitter.

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.stardem.com/article_58ae5828-823f-58fe-9fee-d1def351819d.html

Kollinger: Smile, you're on camera 
 Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:00 am | Updated: 7:15 am, Wed May 23, 2012.

BY RICK KOLLINGER The Star Democrat

Most people by now, I suppose, recognize the fact that when politicians tell them something, it's rarely the truth. So when Gov. O'Malley says he needs more in taxes to "balance the budget," he means, in fact, that, once again, he's spent too much. Taxes, of course, are referred to as "revenue enhancement streams." Which is a pretty good metaphor for how the government views taxpayers, as a large spigot it can open to produce an endless stream of money.

In recent years, I've become suspicious of anything politicians do when they add, "it's for the children." It's rarely for the children and is yet another revenue enhancement stream.

So when the Easton Town Council announced it was installing speed cameras by the schools in town for the safety of the children, my radar went up. If anyone really was concerned about the children in this county, we'd get rid of the current administration.

At the present time, any fine for any ticket given for a moving violation in the state, goes to the state. With the speed cameras, the town splits the money with the speed camera company, usually along the lines of the town getting $25 for every $40 fine. Forty dollars is the limit of the fine allowed (so far). This generates thousands of dollars for the town each month. And for the state. Because the town only gets to keep up to 10 percent of its general fund above operational costs. After that, it goes to the state.

You can see why the state and towns have embraced this scam.

First, the speed camera people do a survey to determine how many people speed in the designated area over a period of time. Then, a representative from the company goes to the chief of police and explains how the speed cameras can aid his department in fighting crime (speeders). You'll remember that the town gets to keep the money above the operational costs. The operational costs are whatever the cops say they are in relation to the cameras. So even though Easton has 50 cops, more than enough to station one at every school in town to watch for speeders, this takes none other than how much they want to pad their operational costs. This is why police chiefs are so anxious to get on board when proposing the cameras to greedy town councils.

At present, speed cameras (by state law) are allowed only in school zones. The loophole, of course, is that towns can increase their school zones to include wherever children may congregate.

The cameras are placed in unmarked cars in a fixed position. As the cars pass by and are clocked at a rate higher than 12 miles above the posted speed (localities will lower the speed limit), a picture is taken of the license tag. This picture then is sent via the Internet to Illinois (home of the company,) where it is viewed (obscured tags are thrown out), and then sent to the local police (where undercover cops or firemen are thrown out) and then back to Illinois, where a ticket is issued and mailed to you. You're given 30 days to pay and you're urged to pay the company online, for which they charge you an additional $3.85.

People rarely challenge the tickets they're given because they're only 40 bucks and no points go against your license and your insurance company is not involved. If you should challenge the ticket, you have to call the company and request a court date, and should you like a representative from the company there, you must request it in writing. However, should you take the time, you'll win the case because the documentation for these radar devices is extremely lax, with out-of-date certification, no on-site calibration, and the fact that the cameras can be manipulated from Illinois. In other words, instead of towns leasing these cameras and policing them themselves, they've allowed an out-of-town entity to run them even though it's in the company's interests to give out as many tickets as possible. A clear conflict of interest (not unknown in Maryland).

These cameras will run from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. regardless of whether school is in session or not. And should the people stop speeding, which is the alleged purpose of the cameras, they will be moved to other cars or other locations to keep up the revenue stream.

This never has been about changing the behavior of the motorists, or about the children either.

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

Memphis Councilman Myron Lowrey drinks speed scamera kool aid.

You can read more about it here.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/speed-cameras-coming-to-memphis%3F-rpt-20120523

Ban the Cams comment.   But make no mistake this is about money from just this one quote:

"They're projected to bring in one million dollars next year."

Ban the Cams note:

Safety is of course PULLING OVER DANGEROUS DRIVERS.  IT is NOT a "crime" fighting tool when you just send bills. 

Do you think a theif cares if you send him a "bill"????

About all the town is really doing is using this for billing for technical fouls. 

In fact read here this latest report on accidents and speeding.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3801.asp

Out of 2.7 million traffic accidents recorded in twenty-five states over the course of a year, only 1.6 percent were caused by drivers who exceeded the posted speed limit.

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/disaster_repairs_redflex_traff.html

Disaster repairs; Redflex traffic light lawsuits on Jefferson Parish Council's agenda
Published: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7:55 AM     Updated: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 11:49 AM
 By Richard Rainey, The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune

Debris collection and repairs to lift stations and traffic signals are among the emergency services the Jefferson Parish Council will consider preemptively awarding today as it meets in the Joseph S. Yenni Building. The council also is scheduled to review the status of lawsuits http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/09/class-action_suit_against_jeff.html swirling around the now defunct stoplight traffic camera program. Two groups of motorists are suing the parish, which is locked into a separate legal battle with the camera providing company, Redflex Traffic Solutions.

Read more: Disaster repairs; Redflex traffic light lawsuits on Jefferson Parish Council's agenda

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-line-healthful-habits-made-simple/2012/may/22/red-light-cameras-increasing-safety-or-profits/

Red Light Cameras: Increasing Safety or Profits?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 

 by Michael Janati

MICHIGAN, May 23, 2012 — “Big Brother” is hungry. The implementation of red-light cameras, or “automated enforcement devices,” has begun to metastasize like a cancer. Under the pretext of safety and the public interest, proponents have begun expanding the program, righteously declaring it as a means to protect life. Yet their claims have been refuted by pertinent scientific data, thus giving rise to uncertainty and skepticism. The immense sums of money generated from these ticketing machines have further inflamed the skepticism.

Red-light cameras, which are mounted on poles to record motorists running red lights, work through the use of sensors. These sensors are embedded in the road where the stop lines are located at the intersection. Once a car gets near the intersection, the sensors are activated, putting the cameras on alert. If one chooses to run a red light, the cameras will take two photos of the rear of the car; the first photo is captured once the back of the car is in front of the stop line and the second photo once the rear axle has crossed the stopped line and is actually in the intersection. 

Approximately half of the states have deployed red-light cameras. In 2000, only 25 cities had red-light cameras, whereas today, more than 500 cities http://www.iihs.org/laws/auto_enforce_cities.aspx have them. Some cities have broadened the scope of automated enforcement by also implementing speed cameras.  Baltimore, Seattle, and New York, for example, have red-light and speed cameras, providing motorist with little breathing room and heightened angst.       

City officials have installed red-light cameras for a variety of reasons. One justification is that the cameras help protect the lives of officers and other motorists as well as pedestrians. This is because an officer would also have to run a red light to catch a light-running perpetrator, thereby increasing the odds of endangering others in or near the intersection.

The other justification is that it is prohibitively expensive to physically police intersections on a regular basis. Instead, municipalities substitute human law enforcers with automated enforcers (surveillance cameras) to obviate the costs associated with having officers regularly monitor these intersections.

The core purpose though for the cameras, according to public officials, is no different that of any other road safety program, which is to promote and protect the safety and welfare of the community.

This is perplexing.

Drawing such a parallel between surveillance cameras mounted on poles and traditional road safety mechanisms such as seat belts, air bags, and crosswalk signals is unsound.  Cameras do not physically act to protect you in anyway during a collision, nor do they serve to guide traffic. They are simply “ticketing machines” that attempt to deter red light running through punishing fines.

Read more: Red Light Cameras: Increasing Safety or Profits?