Speed Camera News

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/sun-investigates/bs-md-sun-investigates-speed-cam-suspension-20130517,0,2218138.story

Behind the scenes of a decision to shut down speed cameras

By Scott Calvert, The Baltimore Sun
3:30 p.m. EDT, May 18, 2013

The emailed directive went out midmorning April 16 from a Baltimore City traffic engineer: No more speed camera tickets are to be issued from the camera in the 3900 block of The Alameda. Less than five hours later, an engineering supervisor wrote another email, stating that the city's entire speed and red-light camera network was being suspended.

The emails, provided by the city in response to a Public Information Act request, offer a glimpse at how transportation officials made a major decision about a controversial program that has caused recurring headaches for the city and many motorists. This time, a camera was programmed with the wrong speed limit, and there was a problem with how payment options were listed on tickets.

The city says the automated enforcement program was suspended April 15, and records show the reverberations of that decision played out through the following day — after The Baltimore Sun noted a motorist's concern about an errant ticket issued on the Alameda.

On Friday, city transportation spokeswoman Adrienne Barnes said the decision to suspend the program came after a face-to-face meeting with representatives of the city's new vendor, Brekford Corp.

The emails make clear that by April 15, city officials had concerns about Brekford. Acting Transportation Director Frank Murphy emailed top agency officials midday to say that company executives would attend an afternoon meeting "so we can discuss problems."

Murphy did not detail those problems.

The Sun was unaware of the meeting when, on the following morning, it sent transportation officials detailed questions about the Brekford speed camera on The Alameda.

A little over an hour later, city engineer Carlos Vidal emailed Brekford, describing the same problem with the camera and ordering it taken "out of enforcement mode." A Brekford official soon replied that had been done. If the system had been suspended a day earlier, it's not clear why any speed or red-light cameras still would have been in enforcement mode.

Around 3:15 p.m. on April 16, city engineering supervisor Jamie McDonald notified several officials in city government and at Brekford that no more speed and red-light camera tickets would be issued citywide for the indefinite future.

"We are suspending the program as far as approving locations and issuing citations until further notice," he said in an email. "We have all worked hard and made a lot of progress but there are still some issues that we need to address before we can move forward."

A half-hour later, Khalil Zaied — Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's deputy chief of operations — told Murphy to inform Brekford CEO C.B. Brechin of the city's decision. Murphy wrote back, saying he had spoken to another company executive. "I informed him," Murphy said.

The department publicly announced its decision a short while later.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/plaquemines_parish_sheriff_to.html#incart_river

Plaquemines Parish sheriff to withdraw traffic camera proposal after public outcry

Plaquemines Parish Sheriff Lonnie Greco says he will ask the Parish Council to withdraw his proposed ordinance allowing traffic cameras in the parish. (

By Paul Purpura, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune
on May 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, updated May 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM      Email 
 

Less than a month after he announced he wanted to use mobile traffic cameras http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/plaquemines_parish_sheriff_see.html to catch speeders in Plaquemines Parish, Sheriff Lonnie Greco said Friday he is dropping the initiative. "The public outcry against the implementation of the proposed traffic camera system in Plaquemines Parish has led me to withdraw the ordinance that was before the Parish Council," Greco said through a spokesman.

Greco announced his about-face Thursday night during a town hall meeting in Belle Chasse. He said last month that he proposed using Redflex, the controversial company that Gretna and Westwego officials use for their traffic enforcement programs.

"The Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office will explore other avenues to address the speeding problem, in addition to stop sign violations, that are occurring throughout Plaquemines Parish," Greco said .

"I want to personally thank all of the citizens and elected officials who either contacted me or I met with over the last month," he said. "I value and respect everyone's opinion. I ask that drivers on Plaquemines' roadways obey speed limits and stop signs and drive safely."

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune last month that he opposed Greco's proposal. "It takes more money out of residents' pockets and is just another burden on taxpayers," Nungesser said.

ABD:  Speed Camera Casualty Reduction Claims are False

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Speed-Camera-Casualty-Reduction-Claims-are-False.html?soid=1101441779436&aid=nLfekhB_sQk

Speed Camera Casualty Reduction Claims are False 

Vysionics ITS, makers of SPECS average-speed cameras, have agreed with the Advertising Standards Authority to change their advertising claims, following a complaint from Malcolm Heymer, traffic management adviser to the Alliance of British Drivers [1]. 

Vysionics claimed that SPECS installations "on average reduce KSIs (Killed and Seriously Injured casualties) by more than 70%".  The clear implication of this wording is that the entire reduction in casualties was due to the cameras alone.  As Malcolm Heymer points out, this cannot be the case:

"Road accidents require two or more contributory factors to come together at the same time.  This means there is an element of chance, so accident numbers along a particular section of road will always vary from year to year.  Speed cameras are usually installed after two or three years of above average accident numbers.  There is a very strong chance, therefore, that the numbers would drop again of their own accord anyway.  When they do, the speed cameras undeservedly get the credit.  This is the biggest cause of the exaggerated claims for speed cameras."

Malcolm continues, "Other factors are also involved, especially the national downward trend in casualties, particularly those involving serious injuries and deaths.  For instance, between 2004-06 and 2008-10, KSIs on rural A-roads nationally fell by 26% [2].  In many cases where speed cameras are installed, other engineering improvements are made at the same time.  Even fairly minor changes to junctions, signs and road markings can make a significant difference to accident frequency.  When all these factors are taken into account, there is often no discernible benefit from speed cameras at all."

The ABD's deputy chairman, Brian Gregory, concludes, "This is long overdue recognition that the claims of the whole speed enforcement industry are exaggerated and self-serving.  The huge increase in speeding penalties in recent years has contributed nothing to the downward trend in casualties which, since 2008, has been largely due to the economic downturn.  A similar downward trend has been seen in other developed countries, regardless of whether they use speed cameras.  The main cause of road accidents is inattention, so this is where road safety policies should be focussed."

ENDS

Notes:

[1] Basic information on the complaint will be published on the ASA's website, www.asa.org.uk, on Wednesday, 22 May 2013.

[2] Calculated from Road Casualties GB 2011, Table 5c.  Department for Transport.

Attachments:

File	Description
Speed-Camera-Casualty-Reduction False 5.2013.pdf

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/05/brekford-to-refund-camera-fines-over.html

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Brekford To Refund Camera Fines Over Hagerstown Calibrations

More bad news for speed camera contractor Brekford Corp, who will have to refund $54,000 worth of speed camera citations after it was discovered that the calibration of speed cameras they deployed in Hagerstown did not meet state requirements for calibration.

A provision of state law requires all speed cameras to be "certified" according to a manufacturer specification ever year by an "independent calibration laboratory".  We previously reported in March how annual calibration certificates which were obtained from the city of Hagerstown had in fact been issued by the manufacturer of the device http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/laurel-hagerstown-circumvent.html, not an independent lab. 

Now, WJLA reports that a motorist challenging a speed camera citation issued on Northern Avenue in Hagerstown uncovered the fact that "Brekford, the contractor which runs the Hagerstown speed control system, had not independently calibrated the camera as is required every year."    The city has since revealed two other cameras with the same issue, and agreed to refund 808 of the citations.

The citations the city has agreed to refund constitute only a small percentage of the tickets issued by Hagerstwon without independent certifications.  Hagerstown speed cameras had issued approximately $1 million worth of tickets as of February 2013 http://articles.herald-mail.com/2013-02-02/news/36710285_1_brekford-school-zones-first-cameras.  The same issue with Hagerstown's cameras was also noted in calibration certificates the Maryland Drivers Alliance obtained from the City of Laurel.

Brekford corp was recently the topic of bad news when a new set of errors were discovered in Brekford speed cameras deployed in Baltimore City http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/04/baltimore-camera-program-shut-down.html, temporarily shutting down the city's speed camera program.  Brekford also was the contractor for Fairmount Heights, whose speed cameras were recently shut down http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/05/fairmount-heights-speed-cameras-may.html after it was discovered that town failed to obtain required permits from the county before deploying them.  Brekford is also engaged in a lawsuit with speed camera supplier Sensys America http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4010.asp over a contract dispute.
Brekford Corp is also the speed camera contractor for Salisbury, Greenbelt, Capitol Heights, Morningside, and Landover Hills.

(Ban the Cams note: Sensys in Sweden denies connections in Sensys America that is run by previous Sensys top executive:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4013.asp

Quote:  "Even the sensysamerica.com website, which was registered in April 2009, runs on the Swedish firm's servers. Despite the close ties, Sensys insists the entities are wholly separate.")

The Maryland Drivers Alliance STRONGLY encourages everyone who contests a speed camera citations to file a Maryland Public Information Act request with the jurisdiction issuing the citation requesting the daily and annual calibration logs. You should do so more than 30 days in advance of your court hearing in order to give you time to examine the logs BEFORE your court hearing.  We have created a sample MPIA request letter https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-xJDL2QXNsci1uZmRyTEU/edit?usp=sharing which you can update and use.  We will be happy to help you analyze any records you receive.

Additional Coverage:

Washington Post: Contractor’s lax inspection of speed cameras leads to $27,000 in refunds in Hagerstown, Md. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/contractors-lax-inspection-of-speed-cameras-leads-to-54000-in-refunds-in-hagerstown-md/2013/05/15/465e898e-bd6a-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html
WTOP: Speed camera firm refunding $27K in Hagerstown http://www.wtop.com/41/3322776/Refunds-coming-from-some-Md-speed-cams

Ban the Cams note:  So much on that comment "if you obey the law" you have nothing to be afraid about,,,,,,,,,YEP YOU DO when you realize this kind of stuff happens more often than most people realize!

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/05/baltimore-resident-gets-three-camera.html

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Baltimore Woman Gets Three Camera Tickets from DC Without Ever Driving There

According to a report on WJLA news http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/miriam-singer-gets-d-c-tickets-despite-never-driving-in-d-c--88523.html, an 87 year old woman from Baltimore has received three speed camera tickets from DC in a 4 month period of time, without ever having actually driven in the District.  The citations depict three different vehicles, none of which belong to the woman, Miriam Singer.

“It’s not my car,” explained Miriam Singer. “It’s obvious that it isn't from the photograph.”

DC voided the citations after being contacted by ABC News 7 stating "This appears to have been human error".

All DC citations are supposedly reviewed by humans before being issued.

DC's automated enforcement programs brought in approximately $95million in revenue http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/dc-speed-camera-cash-skyrocketed-2012/?page=all last year.

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/05/opinion-lawmakers-not-off-hook-on-speed.html

Opinion: Lawmakers Not Off The Hook On Speed Camera Reform

Early this year there was much talk of reforming the State’s broken and corrupt speed camera law, prompted by proof that the City of Baltimore and Xerox Corp had been systematically issuing erroneous speed camera citations to innocent drivers http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html, and by a scathing audit of the SHA which revealed deep flaws in the Maryland Safezones speed camera program http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/11/state-audit-finds-flaws-in-sha-speed.html.  Yet despite all this talk, and some very sound well thought out proposals such as a bill written by Senator Brochin http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/01/first-speed-camera-reform-legislation.html and another bill by Delegate Jon Cardin http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/02/restitution-bills-under-consideration.html, in the end the Maryland legislature utterly failed to address the problems.

How did this happen?  Some blame Senator Pipkin, for threatening to filibuster the last remnants of a speed camera bill on the final day of the session because the house had eliminated additional calibration requirements he had fought to be included in the Senate Bill, rather than accepting the “compromise”.  Certainly that's a very convenient approach for those who opposed reform, and who are now celebrating the fact that they got exactly what they wanted, but don't want to look overly joyous to the public over it.  But the reality is that REAL reform was already dead before that.  The leadership of the House and Senate had already collectively acted to remove the most vital provisions which would have actually made a difference in how speed camera programs are done. Supporters of motorist rights can hardly blame a long time advocate of drivers rights like Pipkin, a senator who has sponsored speed camera repeal legislation http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/02/speed-camera-repeal-bill-introduced-in.html, for not wishing to accept a “reform” measure which did not adequately ensure that the integrity of the system would be substantially better or that promises which have been made to the public would actually begin to be kept.  

Senators Brochin and Carding both had sponsored bills which included the two key provisions of ending the “Bounty System” (ie paying contractors based on the number of tickets issued) and requiring that speed camera citations provide enough information to verify the speed of the vehicle after the fact (something which radar experts, college professors, members of the press, and motorist rights supporters have all called for).   These were simple, straight forward provisions which would have allowed the cameras to continue operating if there was in fact a legitimate safety function for them, but would remove two of the biggest complaints people have about the cameras: namely that contractors have a profit motive to issue more tickets (in violation of the intent of an existing provision of the law according even to Governor O’Malley) and
Yet local governments and the SHA swarmed to block these two provisions.  They were worried that ending the bounty system would cut into the revenue potential of these programs.  And they were TERRIFIED that if they were required to produce evidence of speed, then in fact people might actually discover errors of the same sort which Baltimore did.

Make no mistake about it: the SHA, local governments, and speed camera contractors have all been DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE from speed camera ticket defendants by denying them information about the real time intervals between citation images, and they are DESPERATE to keep it that way.  In so doing they are denying every speed camera ticket defendant their legal right to a fair defense, and they are concealing possible evidence of systematic errors of the same sort which occurred with Xerox's speed cameras in Baltimore City.  That same contractor, Xerox, holds the contracts for Montgomery County, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Bowie, Howard County, Frederick City, Baltimore County and the SHA.  In those jurisdictions they believe motorists should simply trust them and their equipment without supporting evidence despite the fact that where that evidence WAS present their cameras were dead wrong.

So who does have the blame for the failure to pass speed camera reform?  The reality is that the leadership of the state legislature, and particularly the Environmental Matters Committee, never  intended to pass any meaningful reform this year.  An amendment introduced by Senator Madelino (D Montgomery  County) http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/senate-neuters-speed-camera-reform-bill.html had already killed one of the vital provision in Brochin's bill which would have required proof of speed in the senate.  And the Environmental Matters Committee had blocked all bills but the one written by the Vice Chair, including Delegate Cardin’s bill.  The leadership of the Maryland legislature had already decided not to pass real reform long before the session came to a close, it was merely a matter of putting on enough of a show that the average person would not realize what they were doing.

Did the legislature wait until the last day of the session to push this year's gas tax increase through http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/maryland-legislature-votes-to-raise-gas.html, or other highly controversial measures which passed this year?  Of course not, they WANTED those to pass.   Did the threat of a filibuster stop those bills?  Of course not, republicans do not even have enough votes in the Maryland Senate to sustain a filibuster on any bill which the senate leadership actually wants to pass.  But for Malone’s “reform” bill, they waited until nearly the end of the session, and dropped a newly minted bill on the floor, knowing full well there would not be time for the public to thoroughly evaluate its contents: this was a “take it or leave it” proposition.

Now, we are not saying there were no good provision’s in Malone’s bill.  There were some good things there.  All things considered the driving public might have been *marginally* better off in the short term had it passed.  But the current system in Maryland is not "marginally bad", it is terrible.  Malone's bill did not do ANYTHING to address the actual reason why reform was being considered in the first place: the fact that speed cameras in Maryland have been proven to be inaccurate http://www.mddriversalliance.org/search/label/camera%20errors.  And the bill would NOT have resulted in all local governments actually keeping the promise that contractors would not be paid based on the number of tickets issued: The House Committee had not only “grandfathered in “ existing bounty system contracts, but also included a brand new “loophole” which would have legalized any sort of payment based on ticket volume so long as it was not explicitly “per ticket” (such as paying for batches of tickets, or issuing bonuses for meeting certain quotas).

The legislation produced by the Environmental Matters committee was NOT intended to change the system for the better.   It was designed primarily based on input from local governments -- many acting through their front group the "Maryland Association of Counties" (MaCO)-- and speed camera vendors (who spent boatloads of cash on lobbyists) who felt that the only problem they needed to solve was  “How can we do a better job of public relations?” to prevent organized resistance to the state's broken law from rising above a dull roar.  So all this bill was intended to be was either a bunch of provisions designed to LOOK like change, but which really would not change anything fundamental, or something that would not be accepted by lawmakers who are critical of the current system and which would fail to get through the senate in time.  And while the writers of the bill took many pointers from those who profit from cameras, they certainly did not take into consideration the concerns raised by the DRIVERS who came to testify on speed camera reform legislation.

Had Malone’s bill passed, two years from now MOST speed camera contracts in the state would still be paying based on ticket volume.  Local governments could still issue tickets from inaccurate equipment which does not meet national standards for testing without any way of verifying their accuracy after the fact.  Nothing would have changed on this issue except there would have been yet another broken promise to the public.

So who has the blame for this?  Ultimately the blame must lie on the legislators who voted to put the cameras there in the first place.  State Lawmakers who voted for speed cameras in the first place have a MORAL OBLIGATION to ensure that the promises which have been made to the public are kept, that people will not be falsely accused, and that those who are accused have a legitimate chance to exonerate themselves.   They did not do that.  Now it is up to the public to ensure that those lawmakers are not let off the hook.  The driving public needs to unite into a citizen-based motorist organization which will work to hold state lawmakers accountable.  And they need to do this NOW, not wait until the start of the next session, because those who profit from Maryland’s corrupt speed camera law most certainly are not resting on their laurels after their victory at blocking reform and repeal legislation this year.

Israel, Poland: Speed Cameras Attacked
Soldier in Israel burns a speed camera while camera in Poland is painted pink.

Vigilantes near Lodz, Poland painted a speed camera pink on Monday, Polskie Radio http://www.polskieradio.pl/5/15/Artykul/834868,Rozowy-fotoradar-Czy-ktos-go-przygarnie- reported. The device had been issuing tickets on the road between Gmina Sieradz and Zdunska Wola.

A woman about to join the Israeli Defense Forces burned a speed camera in Haifa, Israel last July. She admitted to the act and was sentenced this week by a district court judge. According to Ynet News http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374630,00.html, she was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and a 25,000 sheckel (US $6970) fine.

http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/bc-liberals-must-come-clean-secret-agenda-photo-radar

BC Liberals Must Come Clean On Secret Agenda for Photo Radar
April 30, 2013 | News Releases

 
Premier Christy Clark needs to answer serious questions about her position on road safety after one of her candidates told a reporter he supports the return of photo radar.

While Ms. Clark was on TV saying she opposes photo radar, one of her candidates, Mike Morris, the BC Liberal Candidate in Prince George-Mackenzie, was telling media the exact opposite.

"You know technology's available right now that can monitor vehicles and monitor speed and monitor everything that vehicles do … I think we have to take advantage of some of these technologies, yeah."

“I think photo radar was effective.”
- BC Liberal Candidate Mike Morris (The Tyee, April 30, 2013)

It’s time for Christy Clark to be honest with voters about where she really stands. Does she have a secret plan for photo radar that her candidate let slip out?

This election is a stark choice between BC Liberals, who will make life more expensive for British Columbians, or the BC NDP who will bring change for the better.

Europe:  Report outlines French speed scamera SCAMS.  PURPOSE OF FRENCH SCAMERAS is MONEY!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4089.asp

France: Report Identifies Most Outrageous Speed Traps
Motorist group in France compiles list of the worst speed traps based on input from 67,000 drivers.

Motorists in France are arming themselves against what they consider predatory speed traps. The pro-driving group Forty Million Motorists on Monday released a 32-page report detailing the country's most underhanded speed camera locations. The group compiled the list by sorting through the 67,000 results they received after asking the public to, "Tell me about your radar."

"Every trap is a counter-productive in terms of acceptance of road safety policy," the report explained. "That is why we hope that the selected stories will alert public authorities to the inconsistent and tricky situations motorists identified."

The report classified the testimony they collected under ten general types of speed trap. The first, as represented by the camera on the D338 between Tours and Le Mans, relies upon inconsistency. One side of the road has a 90km/h speed limit (55 MPH) the other side has a 70km/h (43 MPH) limit -- only the 70km/h side has a speed camera.

The second type of trap is a camera placed where the speed limit is not appropriate. French motorists complained about cameras being stationed on four-lane, pedestrian free, well maintained highway with a limit of just 50km/h (31 MPH). The third trap is the camera stationed at the bottom of a downhill road, designed to entrap drivers as their speed increases slightly over the limit due to gravity.

Fourth is the hidden camera, where officials place the device behind bushes or other obstructions in a deliberate attempt to surprise motorists. Fifth is a photo radar unit placed inside a zone where the speed limit briefly lowers. French drivers complained that these devices were not targeting outrageous speeders, but going after honest drivers who may have missed the speed limit sign. Sixth is a similar situation where a camera is placed in a speed zone that is suddenly lowered, as the camera at Saint Avertin where motorists were used to driving legally at 100km/h (62 MPH), and the same speed a few days later resulted in a ticket. This happened to be the most profitable camera of 2012.

Seventh is confusing or insufficient signage. Cameras are often placed in locations where the speed limit sign is too far from the camera so motorists do not know how fast they should be driving. Eighth is the camera placed after, not before, known road hazards. Ninth is the camera in a passing zone, which tells motorists to focus on their speedometer rather than overtaking in the safest manner possible. The last type is the entry and exit points of a town where cameras are placed nowhere near homes on entry or right before the lowered speed limit ends upon exit.

The report recommends placing speed limit signs at the speed camera site, a national audit of cameras and their locations, clear rules on when lowering the speed limit is permissible and outlawing hidden speed cameras.

A copy of the report is available (in French) in a 1.5mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Raconte-moi ton radar (40 Millions dAutomobilistes, 4/29/2013 http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/fr-report.pdf)

UK town used illegal speed limit.  Motorists illegally cited by speed scameras!  Some tickets as low as 5 mph.

Road with was posted illegally at 50 mph, when it was supposed to be 60 mph!

Thanks to the Association of British Drivers on sharing this link.  www.abd.org.uk

http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/10360976.Motorists_ask_whether_Hagley_A491_speeding_fines_are_legal_/

Motorists ask whether Hagley A491 speeding fines are legal?
.9:00am Friday 19th April 2013 in News .

FURIOUS Hagley residents have reacted angrily to Worcestershire County Council’s admission they made a technical error in procedure when introducing a 50mph speed limit on the A491.

The stretch of road between Hagley and Fairfield had been under a 60mph limit since 1993.

However the County Council introduced a 50mph limit on a section of the road near Belbroughton.

A review by West Mercia Safer Roads Partnership discovered the original 60mph order was never amended to reflect the change for that part of the road.

The County Council are now applying to put the matter right, but the discovery has left motorists, who fell foul of the mobile speed cameras, wondering whether their convictions were legal?

Hagley resident Peter Rowbottom insisted: “There could be hundreds if not thousands of motorists who may have been prosecuted under a potentially illegal speed limit order, which would mean they were unfairly fined and had penalty points added to their licences.”

Fellow resident Rachel Jenkins was twice caught speeding at 55 and 56 mph on the proposed stretch.

She said: “In theory, I shouldn’t have been penalised for going over 50, yet I was fined £30 in 2004 and had three penalty points put on my licence.

“I was caught again in 2010 but elected to attend a driver awareness course rather than have another fine and penalty points.

“I had to pay for the course and take half a day off work as well.

“What’s gone wrong and why has it taken so long to put it right?

“It seems the only way you can challenge this is through the courts, but that could prove expensive.”

(Ban the Cams note:  This is by design to discourage challanges on any tickets.   It is essentially outlawing due process by making challanges massively more than the ticket.  This is the prefered method of the scamera side.  Hard core criminals have more due process rights than citizens wrongly accused by a scamera company!)

County Cllr Ed Moore said: “It’s a legal matter and I’m not a legal man, so I couldn’t comment on it.”

MD Town breaking law on Speed Scameras!  Tickets illegal

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/04/fairmount-heights-speed-cameras-not-in-compliance-county-says-88191.html

MARYLAND
Fairmount Heights' speed cameras not in compliance, county says
April 30, 2013 - 04:57 pm

Prince George's County is now taking action to stop the unauthorized cameras in Fairmount Heights from sending out tickets.

Fairmount Heights never received the proper permits or memorandum of understanding from the county for the installed speed cameras on Sheriff and Addison roads. The town also appears to be in violation of a state law that allows photo enforcement only in school zones and requires that cameras are properly announced via signage.

Following a visit from an inspector, Prince George's County officials are sending a letter to Fairmount Heights officials, requesting that they deactivate the cameras until they are in compliance with county and state law.

Residents say the implication to those already ticketed is obvious.

C.J. Byrd of Prince George's County said, "The people who have paid should get their money refunded, and the people who might have gotten current tickets shouldn't have to pay, because it's the city's mistake..."

Privately, several county officials told ABC7 that ultimately a judge will probably have to decide whether Fairmount Height's photo radar tickets are enforceable.

Meanwhile, veteran Defense Attorney Donny Knepper says the tickets should be challenged.

"The citizens of the county were not put on proper notice, and that should render any ticket that was issued from one of those machines null and void. And anybody who received such a ticket should challenge it in court, and that violation and fine should be vacated."

 

AU Goverment seems to be upset over 2.2 million AU lost revenue.  So much on the "safety" argument!

Thanks to CameraFraud on sharing this!

Ban the Cams note:  At least the scamera side is being honest about the reasons they use scameras.  REVENUE!

No wonder you see scameras under attack in the world!

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1466296/speeding-fine-revenue-crashes/?cs=12

Speeding fine revenue crashes

By PATRICK BILLINGS April 29, 2013, 10:58 p.m.

THOUSANDS of speeding motorists have been let off the hook and millions of dollars have been lost in revenue because of   speed camera bungles.

Tasmania Police has issued a staggering 16,373, or 73 per cent, fewer speed camera infringement notices since July compared with the same time the previous year.

Its latest performance report shows that only 1746 speed camera fines have been issued in the North compared with 6281 last year.

Assistant Police Commissioner Donna Adams blamed technical issues with the ageing roadside speed cameras during 2012.

Also behind the fine freeze were software problems with the 10 new speed cameras bought last November by police  for $600,000.

Yesterday the state government said changes in ``tactical methods'' had led to fewer camera fines, arguing that police had still issued 23,700 speeding infringements from 191 other detection devices this financial year.

``The speed camera statistics need to be read in context,'' Police Minister David O'Byrne said.

``I'm advised police are becoming less dependent on fixed speed cameras, and catching more offenders with other devices, like hand-held and car-mounted radar devices.

``Police are still catching speeders  but they're catching them differently.''

But this is not borne out by the figures, which show this financial year's non-camera speeding fines are eclipsed by the 34,407 fines issued in the same period last year.

The three-year average for the number of non-camera fines issued from July to March is 35,714.

Mr O'Byrne could not say how much the bungle has cost the government in lost revenue.

However, using the conservative estimate of $80 a fine (the lowest fine issued for a speeding offence), this financial year's 27,000 fewer speeding fines come  to about $2.2 million in lost revenue.

The Police Association of Tasmania has blamed budget cuts, including the axing of a civilian-operated speed camera program for the drop in fines.

Association president Pat Allen said combining traffic police with  public order response teams as a savings measure was always going to have a flow-on effect.

``We told the government this would happen,'' Constable Allen said.

``If you get rid of the civilian speed camera operators, who were very dedicated to their job, this is what occurs. You cut the police numbers, this is what occurs.''

(Ban the Cams note:  Wonder how close the cops are there to the "rewards" directly or indireclty on pushing the scamera propaganda.  Might make a great research story given that AU company REDFLEX employees are UNDER BRIBERY INVESTIGATION!)

Liberal police spokeswoman Elise Archer said Mr O'Byrne had reduced the ability of police to detect serious speeding and ``put Tasmanian road users at risk''.

Ban the Cams note:  you mean non dangerous don't ya.  In order to keep the scam going, the trigger speeds have gotten less and less.  With even proposals to issue tickets on 4 km/h (or 2.5 mph) tickets.  http://www.banthecams.org/Speed-Camera-News/redflex-to-benefit-from-lower-trigger-speeds-in-the-au-to-churn-tickets-4-kmh-about-25-mph-trig.html

Note crashes caused by exceeding the speed limit tend to be under 5%  or less (like this example out of the UK http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/538.asp).  The scamera side tries to hide by using "speed related" which counts accidents below the speed limit as well as accidents that might be above the speed limit, BUT WERE NOT CAUSED by exceeding the speed limit. 

Example:  Driver going 5 over the limit is hit by a drunk who crosses the center line going the other direction under the limit suddenly.  The cause was DUI, but because the sober driver was going over the limit by 5, they "count" that in the statistics, even thought it was NEVER the reason the accident happened in the beggining!

Going to fast for conditions is what really gets you in trouble whether above or below the limit.  As a wise man once said.  Measure what is important, NOT what is easy to measure.

Assistant Commissioner Adams said police used high-visibility policing to promote road safety in addition to speed cameras. 

She said the number of high-visibility vehicles had increased from four to 18.

``There is also a greater emphasis on high-visibility patrols of our arterial roads, which has led to greater compliance with road laws,'' she said.

Mr O'Byrne said the problem had been fixed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/28/williams-speed-camera-use-robs-us-of-our-humanity/?page=1

WILLIAMS: Speed camera use robs us of our humanity
 

By Armstrong Williams

Sunday, April 28, 2013

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Last year the District of Columbia’s speed cameras generated $95.6 million in revenue. That was double 2011’s receipts, so you can bet there was dancing in the hallways at city hall over an extra $50 million in the coffers. And what did this cost you? Only your basic rights.

Speed cameras are sold as a means of protection. Over and over you will hear politicians and the makers of these cash cows talk about safety. “Safety this. Safety that. Think of the children, and I’m offended you think that we are doing this only for the money.”

The truth: It’s all about the money.

How do I know? First, look at where the cameras are located. Most are on major commuter routes and few are in school zones and residential areas. This tells me that the cameras are aimed at taking money from tourists and commuters far more than at protecting schoolchildren.

Another telling detail: Speed cameras do not cost you points on your license nor affect your insurance rates. Pay your fine, and the city is happy.

Also, the speed limits change right before you pass the cameras. Usually, it is a sudden 10 mph drop. What was once legal is suddenly illegal, and everyone slams on the brakes once they realize the camera is there. So it’s a gotcha game as well as a driving hazard.

We all hate getting pulled over by cops, but if someone is driving in a dangerous fashion, police can make that call and immediately do something to save lives. Speed-camera tickets come in the mail two weeks later. If I were driving like a fool, these cameras would not pull me over and save a life.

Furthermore, officers can warn you. Many times, you may not realize you have broken the law. Say you forgot to turn on your lights, your taillight went out, or you blew through a stop sign you didn’t see in an unfamiliar area. A human can stop you and instantly correct your behavior, determine that you made an innocent mistake and let you go on your way.

Even when the cop writes a ticket, you immediately know what you did wrong and can correct your actions.

When you think the cop is wrong, you can challenge the ticket in a court of law. That is why we have due process and the right to face our accuser. Humans make mistakes, and it is a fundamental constitutional right to give our side of the story. A computer does not listen or consider circumstances; it simply executes a code.

Even makers of speed-camera equipment have acknowledged problems — incorrect speed limits, programming errors that led to one out of 20 cars being automatically ticketed, etc. Yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to subpoena the records and challenge the ticket.

“Just pay it. Waiving your rights is no big deal. It’s not like it costs you your license,” the politicians say.

But $100 is a big deal for a lot of working folks. Even if they get caught once, their monthly budget suddenly is blown. Of course they won’t know for two weeks, so they probably will owe more than $100.

Furthermore, some of the revenue that speed cameras generate goes to the corporations selling and maintaining the equipment. They have a vested interest in getting you to break the law because they receive $1 for every $4 you are fined.

Why would we, as a society, want a robot to indiscriminately determine our guilt or innocence? A machine can do only what it is programmed to do, nothing more. It cannot weigh evidence, consider arguments or judge testimony. If there is an error in programming or if the machine breaks down, both of which happen regularly, you get a ticket. We have given these machines ultimate authority, despite knowing their limitations.

Only real people can address a situation and determine the proper course of action when it comes to enforcing and interpreting the law.

A neighbor sees children playing cops and robbers. A machine registers someone waving a gun and reports a threat.

A policeman sees a woman driving to work, momentarily above the limit but slowing down into the flow of traffic. A machine logs a speeding ticket and puts the ticket in the mail.

Speed cameras may have been enacted initially for public safety, but that idea has been washed away by torrents of cash. The No. 1 protector of the streets has been and always should be a human police officer — one who can assess the entire situation, act immediately and be held accountable in a court of law. Allowing the proliferation of machines to dole out fines robs us not only of our rights, but a piece of our humanity as well.

Daylight attack in Saudi.  Citizens "punished" on even peaceful protesting scameras in Poland.  Italy threatens arrest of cheering.

Ban the Cams note:  The worldwide hatred of the one lense bandits grows.  Scamera side now resorting to undemocractic treatment of valid dissent.

You know the public doesn't really want the scameras when in Poland the goverment made it a "crime" to HOLD UP A PROTEST SIGN against speed cameras.  Or in Italy where even cheering the end of a scamera can lead to a "arrest".  

The scamera side than has the gaul to wonder why people attack the machines???  You can't keep saying protest are illegal (Poland), voter votes on scameras are "illegal" (Washington State), even having a speaking against scameras is "illegal" by a cheer (Dolo, Italy).

Ban the Cams note II:  WE HOPE MORE PEOPLE HOLD UP PROTEST SIGNS AND "BREAK" THE "LAW" on peaceful protest of sCAMERAS! Just be peaceful is all we ask!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4086.asp

Italy, Poland, Saudi Arabia: Speed Cameras Burn, Fall
Vigilantes take out speed cameras in Italy, Poland and Saudi Arabia. Officials fight back.

In Europe and the United States, speed camera attacks generally happen at night or in the early morning hours. This was not the case in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when a group of vigilantes set fire to a "Saher" speed camera in broad daylight in the middle of a busy street with the event capture on video (view on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7mEzW-nKLA). According to Bab http://www.bab.com/node/177025, the Grand Mufti has condemned such attacks.

On Friday night in Angiari, Italy, vigilantes set fire to a "Velo ok" speed camera. The automated ticketing machine on the Via Lungo Busse suffered 1000 euros (US $1300) in damage, according to Verona Sera http://www.veronasera.it/cronaca/vendetta-angiari-brucia-colonnina-autovelox-27-aprile-2013.html. In Carre, a speed camera on the Via San Lorenzo was set on fire at around 2:30am on Tuesday, Vicenza Today http://www.vicenzatoday.it/cronaca/autovelox-velo-ok-incendio-carre.html reported.

In Dolo, a speed camera was ripped out of the ground on Monday and tossed into a nearby ditch. The device had previously been issuing tickets on the bypass connecting Fiesso d'Artico to Pianiga, La Nuova di Venezia e Mestre http://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/04/23/news/vandali-strappano-l-autovelox-e-gettano-l-impianto-nel-fosso-1.6940301 reported. Outraged local officials threatened to arrest anyone cheering the attacks.

"We will report the names of those who write certain things on Facebook to the police because the 'instigation of damage to public property' is considered a crime," Maria Rosa Pavanello, the mayor of Mirano, told Il Gazzettino http://www.gazzettino.it/province/nordest/autovelox_oscurati_e_fatti_esplodere_i_vandali_istigano_alla_rivolta_su_facebook/notizie/272846.shtml.

The same attitude could be seen in Jaslo, Poland where a judge sentenced two men into pay a 500 zloty fine (US $157) for the crime of opposing the use of speed cameras. According to Onet News http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/rzeszow/mieszkancy-jasla-walczyli-z-fotoradarami-zostali-s,1,5477082,region-wiadomosc.html the pair infuriated police by holding up a sign "Warning: Speed Camera" which cut significantly into the number of fines being issued. The judge delivered the sentence without holding a trial.

The pissing match has begun between ACS and Baltimore over money.

Ban the Cams note: make no mistake cities and vendors do NOT do scameras to imporve "safety".  MONEY has been and WILL ALWAYS be what scameras are about.  This is why the "violations" become ever more petty as scamera programs try to stay profitable. 

• This is why on RLC you see vendors now "citing" on "violations" based on:  right turns on red, stop lines, curb line (trigger lines past stop lines), olympic style grace periods (under 1/10 a second).  The original RLC "only" went after short amber (3 to 4 second) with .5 grace periods.  Those were later shorten to churn tickets, like in San Diego, CA a bit back.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp (note San Diego has cancelled their RLC program). 
• On speed scameras, you see countries like GB which started out with 20 mph trigger speeds only on certain roads to high traffic roads with trigger speeds down to 3 mph.  IN parts of Europe we have seen trigger speeds as low as 1 km/h.  Heck Spain has taken this one step beyond and cite based on being too "slow" past a speed scamera.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3523.asp

Then you have UK goverment officials that have been busted manipulating statistics to keep the scam going.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2851.asp

British Medical Journal noticed the lying here (the police underreported):  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp

There is strong indications that the camera vendors are HELPING write reports claiming scameras work.

Even the Denver Post had this to say on the city letting ACS write the city "report" on scameras"  http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19580844

Quote:  To say that ACS has a direct financial stake in demonstrating that photo radar enhances public safety should be self-evident. How could such a study possibly be accepted as a dispassionate portrayal of the facts when so much is on the line for those who are conducting it

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-xerox-dispute-20130424,0,7438966.story

City in $2 million dispute with Xerox over camera tickets
Officials withhold payment for final three months of contract
By Scott Calvert and Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun
6:50 p.m. EDT, April 24, 2013

Baltimore officials are refusing to pay the city's former speed and red-light camera operator $2 million for its final three months of work, a period that preceded the troubled start for the new contractor in January.

The city stopped issuing tickets from the cameras for weeks because of the rocky transition from the old vendor, Xerox State and Local Solutions, to Brekford Corp.

Xerox says it's owed money for services provided in October, November and December, according to Solicitor George Nilson, the city's chief lawyer.

Because of a "number of disagreements," Nilson said, "the city held back on making those payments" at least temporarily. "Prudent business people don't automatically or necessarily send out final payments when there are pending issues needing to be resolved," he said.

A Xerox spokesman, Carl Langsenkamp, declined to comment. "We will not discuss the details of our negotiations with the City," he wrote in an e-mail.

Nilson said the disputed figure is "slightly in excess of $2 million."

The figure represents the fees Xerox says it is owed for speed and red-light citations issued by the city in the last three months of 2012, according to Nilson. Under its contract, the company received a share of every fine paid by motorists — up to $19.20 of each $40 speed camera fine, for example.

After attempts to reach a resolution failed, discussions are now in a "quiet mode," Nilson said. He would not say how much money the city might be willing to pay Xerox or give details on the dispute.

Disagreement between the two sides flared into the open Tuesday when the city said it would void more than 6,000 tickets appealed by drivers because Xerox since April 8 has stopped appearing in court to defend them. Company officials say they have given the city all needed information to defend those tickets.

A major issue has been the transition to Brekford, the vendor hired after the city concluded the firm would work out better financially. Maurice R. Nelson, a Brekford executive, has said his company couldn't operate the city's cameras when it took over Jan. 1 because Xerox didn't leave behind its software. Xerox contends its software is proprietary.

During the transition, 78 city speed cameras and 81 red-light cameras went offline for weeks. Lately Brekford has been installing new speed cameras. But last week the city again stopped issuing automated tickets after it emerged that one of Brekford's cameras was programmed with the wrong speed limit.

By voiding the 6,000-plus tickets on appeal, city officials are forgoing the chance to collect $300,000 in fines. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Wednesday she's not concerned about lost money. The important thing, she said, is for the city to reduce errors and get the cameras working again.

"My concern is that we get this right," Rawlings-Blake said. "For me this is about making sure we can move forward with a program that helps us reach our goal, which is to create more safety for our kids."

Ban the Cams comment: OH please.  You just want the scamera money machine back on! 

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/04/baltimore-to-throw-out-6000-tickets.html

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Baltimore To Throw Out 6000 Tickets, City Says They Have "No Evidence"

The Baltimore Sun reports that Baltimore City will be voiding 6000 speed and red light camera citations http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-speed-camera-court-20130423,0,4612679,full.story which were pending court hearings because their former speed camera contractor, Xerox Corporation, has stopped showing up for court hearings.  The city claims they have no evidence with which to prosecute the cases.

According to the Sun's report a district court judge dismissed all citations presented at a recent court hearing after the city stated they had no evidence to prosecute the cases, eliciting smiles from the defendants.

Baltimore ended their contract with Xerox Corporation late last year after signing a new contract with Brekford Corp.  The change occurred at a time when the city and Xerox had come under intense fire after revelations that some of their speed cameras had been systematically issuing erroneous tickets.

Baltimore's program was recently shut down after a discovery that one of its new cameras provided by Brekford had also issued erroneous tickets, after being programmed to enforce a 25mph speed limit on a stretch of road posted at 30mph.  The city has not announced a date when the program would resume.

The Sun has also reported that Baltimore City is withholding $2million in payments to Xerox Corp http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-xerox-dispute-20130424,0,7438966.story:

Because of a "number of disagreements," City Solicitor George Nilson said, "the city held back on making those payments" at least temporarily. "Prudent business people don't automatically or necessarily send out final payments when there are pending issues needing to be resolved," he said

Baltimore MD:  Nearly 6,000 Speed and Red Light Camera Tickets to be Thrown Out.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/nearly-6000-speed-red-light-camera-tickets-thrown-out-19202.shtml

Nearly 6,000 Speed and Red Light Camera Tickets to be Thrown Out

Updated: Wednesday, April 24 2013, 11:30 PM EDT
 

Nearly six thousand drivers who received speed camera tickets or red light tickets in Baltimore City last year will not have to pay the fines.

City officials say Xerox, the company which operated the cameras until the end of last year, could not provide enough credible evidence to substantiate the violations. 

The announcement comes one week after city officials announced the suspension of the speed and red light camera program pending a further investigation of incorrect calculations.

Drivers who received tickets this year from speed or red light cameras in Baltimore City will still have to pay the fines, unless the tickets were issued from a camera on the Alameda in Northeast Baltimore and contested them.

City officials discovered that camera had been incorrectly calibrated which resulted in numerous tickets being issued to drivers who had not exceeded the speed limit.

Vicki Stinson, who received a speed camera ticket in Baltimore City, says "It cost enough to drive a car, it really does, it cost enough and I don't need to have money taken out of my pocket unfairly because of a glitch in the system."

"We realized it was time to slow down, stop, implement double and triple checks, make sure everything's right," said Baltimore City's Acting Transportation Director Frank Murphy.

City officials have not said when they expect the speed cameras and red light cameras to be reactivity.Nearly 6,000 Speed and Red Light Camera Tickets to be Thrown Out

Ban the Cams note:  INSTEAD OF turning the scam back out.  BALTIMORE NEEDS TO ASK THEIR VOTERS DO THEY EVEN WANT THE SCAMERAS TO RETURN!

SURELY BALTIMORE COULD ASK THEIR CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS THIS BASIC QUESTION IN A VOTE!

Speed Scamera side likey behind IL "24 Hour" Zombie "school" zones.

Ban the Cams note:  The city of Chicago was having a problem making their scamera "work" under the existing IL law on school zones. 

http://www.banthecams.org/Speed-Camera-News/chicago-tribune-citys-plan-to-snare-speeders-in-school-zones-hits-legal-and-technological-jam.html

That’s the speed motorists must obey in a school zone when children are present between 7 AM and 4 PM on school days.

In order to make the scamera profitable, they conned IL house to allowing 24 hour school zones.  

No matter the time of day, or day of the week, or if school is in session, whenever a child is present in a school zone, drivers would have to reduce their speed to 20 mph if the bill becomes law.
 

Yep, you can get a "ticket" "speeding" in a "school zone" at 3 am.  Gotta to make sure those zombie kids can get to school.  (by the way watch out they eat brains we hear).

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/04/illinois-state-house-passes-law-to-expand-school-zone-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-103291

State House Passes Law To Expand School Zone Enforcement
April 20, 2013   Traffic Safety

20 mph.

That’s the speed motorists must obey in a school zone when children are present between 7 AM and 4 PM on school days.

But now, the Illinois State House of Representatives voted late this past week to make school zone speed limits enforced 24 hours a day according to the Chicago Tribune.

No matter the time of day, or day of the week, or if school is in session, whenever a child is present in a school zone, drivers would have to reduce their speed to 20 mph if the bill becomes law.

Local pro-pedestrian and bike group Active Transportation Alliance came out strongly in favor of the bill.

“Our children deserve a safe walk to and from school. But hundreds of children are killed or injured annually in Illinois by being hit by a car within one block of a school,” said an email to Active Trans members earlier this week. “The Illinois State House will vote this week on a bill to make that fix—and any family with school-aged children has significant stake in the outcome: over 3700 school-aged children were hit by cars from 2007 to 2011 in Chicago alone. A third of those crashes were hit and runs.”

Curiously, Chicago Public Schools has no record of any type of educational curriculum that instructs school age children on pedestrian safety at any school within the district, according to multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The House passed the bill 90-10. It now goes to the Illinois Senate.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-19/news/ct-met-illinois-school-zones-0421-20130420_1_school-zone-crashes-illinois-house
 

Best quote:  "It sounds like somebody just wants to make money off of people who are working in Chicago," Davis added. Instead, "what we should do is teach our children how to cross the street."

Speed Scamera Attacks week ending 4/21/2013

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4077.asp

Italy, France: Speed Cameras Decorated
Speed camera decorated with flowers in France, four of them decorated with spraypaint in Italy.

In Belfort, France, flower pots were used to decorate a speed camera on Monday. The festive automated ticketing machine in the town of Chaux also included a chalkboard menu from Chez Jerome, a local inn, Est Republicain http://www.estrepublicain.fr/fil-info/2013/04/15/territoire-de-belfort-le-radar-automatique-de-chaux-se-met-aux-couleurs-du-printemps reported.

Four out of the six speed cameras installed in Mirano, Italy on Monday were covered with spraypaint by Wednesday morning, according to according to Venezia Today http://www.veneziatoday.it/cronaca/autovelox-mirano-imbrattati-spray-17-aprile-2013.html. The bright orange columns, named "Velo OK," have white or black paint blocking the lens before officials have had a chance to activate the devices.

Maryland Speed Camera Repeal Amendment Blocked in House

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/04/repeal-amendment-blocked-in-house.html

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Repeal Amendment Blocked in House

As Maryland State lawmakers were busy de-clawing proposed speed camera reform legislation, bills which would have repealed Maryland's speed camera law had been submitted to both the House and Senate were blocked by the Judicial Proceedings and Environmental Matters committees and were not permitted to come to a vote on the floor.  Not to be deterred so easily, Delegate Michael Smigiel ((R, Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties) brought the issue to a vote in the House by proposing an amendment http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/amds/bil_0009/HB0929_22322601.pdf to the house version of a "speed camera reform bill".  Delegate Smigiel's amendment would have changed the bill to repeal the state law which authorizes speed cameras.

Of course, the House voted the amendment down.  

The House reform bill replaced another reform bill which had passed the Senate with only a few days left in the annual session and added provisions which would have "grandfathered in" existing bounty system contracts.  Despite much bluster brought about by discoveries of extensive problems in the speed camera programs of Baltimore City and the SHA, the legislature ended without passing any legislation pertaining to speed cameras whatsoever.

The House vote on the unsuccessful speed camera repeal amendment http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=flrvotepage&tab=subject3&id=HB0929,h-1007&stab=02&ys=2013rs was as follows:

House Delegates Voting AGAINST Speed Camera Repeal Amendment
 Speaker Busch DeBoy Holmes Miller, A. Stein
 Anderson Dumais Howard Mitchell Stukes
 Arora Feldman Hubbard Mizeur Summers
 Barkley Frick Hucker Morhaim Swain
 Barnes Frush Ivey Murphy Tarrant
 Barve Gaines Jameson Nathan-Pulliam Turner, F.
 Beidle Gilchrist Kaiser Niemann Turner, V.
 Bobo Glenn Kelly, A. Pena-Melnyk Valderrama
 Branch Griffith Kramer Pendergrass Valentino-Smith
 Braveboy Gutierrez Lafferty Proctor Vallario
 Cane Guzzone Lee Reznik Vaughn
 Carr Hammen Love Robinson, B. Waldstreicher
 Clippinger Harper Luedtke Robinson, S. Washington, A.
 Conaway Haynes Malone Rosenberg Washington, M.
 Conway Healey McHale Rudolph Wilson
 Cullison Hixson McIntosh Simmons Zucker

House Delegates Voting FOR Speed Camera Repeal Amendment
 Afzali Fisher James Miller, W. Schuh
 Aumann Frank Kach Minnick Schulz
 Bates George Kelly, K. Myers Smigiel
 Beitzel Glass Kipke Norman Sophocleus
 Boteler Haddaway-Riccio Krebs O'Donnell Stifler
 Cluster Hershey McComas Oaks Stocksdale
 Costa Hogan McConkey Olszewski Szeliga
 Dwyer Hough McDermott Otto Vitale
 Eckardt Impallaria McDonough Parrott Walker
 Elliott Jacobs McMillan Ready Wood

Not Voting/Absent:
 Bohanan Cardin Jones Serafini Weir
 Burns Carter   

 Bromwell Clagett Donoghue

Ban the Cams note:  WE would like to thank all those lawmakers who saw through the LIE of speed cameras and voted to REPEAL the use of speed scameras in MD.  WE encourage not only those lawmakers, but all Maryland citizens to keep working on banning the speed cameras.