proposed red light cameras in Calvert

The press release put out by Sheriff Bartlett states that the red light cameras would ticket motorists for running a red light after the the traffic light has turned red for at least .2 seconds. Perhaps a better way to have said that would have been to say "two tenths of ONE second". With the "s" on the end of the word "second" people may incorrectly think that they would be allowed a full two seconds before getting their vehicle's picture taken. Fact is, if there was a full two seconds leeway after the light turned red, the number of tickets issued would be significantly reduced and the program would not be profitable. Increasing the amber light also has the same effect of significantly reducing the number of tickets. But this is counter to the purpose of installing the cameras in the first place, which is to raise money for the jurisdiction and the company providing the service.
When public officials cite that the cameras have made "reductions in the number of red light runners", they don't tell the public that traffic engineers at some point may also have increased the duration of the traffic signal amber light, or increased the time allowed before the red light camera clicks the picture, either action causing a reduction in the number of tickets issued. In other words, the revenue generated by red light cameras is determined by the timing of the traffic lights.
The red light cameras have a lot of problems. Ticket fines are sent out to the vehicle's owner instead of to the driver of the vehicle. There can also be the problem of incorrectly reading the tag number. One incorrect digit sends the ticket fine to the wrong vehicle owner who may find it easier to pay the fine rather than fight the bureacracy of trying to get it corrected.
The bottom line is that red light cameras are not needed in Calvert County. Route 2-4 is a state highway, and the Calvert County government has no business entering into a contract with an out-of-state company to send ticket fines to our motorists. I encourage all citizens to contact some of the other county commissioners and tell them to forget it.
Sincerely, John Douglas Parran
Calvert County Commissioner

Originally posted by JDouglasParran
Increasing the amber light also has the same effect of significantly reducing the number of tickets. But this is counter to the purpose of installing the cameras in the first place, which is to raise money for the jurisdiction and the company providing the service.
When public officials cite that the cameras have made "reductions in the number of red light runners", they don't tell the public that traffic engineers at some point may also have increased the duration of the traffic signal amber light, or increased the time allowed before the red light camera clicks the picture, either action causing a reduction in the number of tickets issued. In other words, the revenue generated by red light cameras is determined by the timing of the traffic lights.

Click to expand...

I knew it! :dosman:

The bottom line is that red light cameras are not needed in Calvert County.

Click to expand...

I knew that too! So it's all about the money, eh? And that money goes where?

BTW, thanks for stopping in and giving us your input.

Red Light Cameras

Thanks, Doug for some common sense. The entire situation as portrayed in the media tells the tale to an extent.

n my opinion, the comparison that the current Sheriff has made is fraught with emotion, little fact and political innovation. I would think that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has available data with which to partially base a sound leadership driven decision for any community. It is my understanding, that these cameras have been causing rear end colissions at intersections. Imagine getting rear ended at 70 miles an hour...

The nexus cited in the comissioners' meeting by the current Sheriff to the supoosed untrustworthiness of an engineer doesn't wash either. Plum Point Elementary and Middle Schools have needed a slower speed limit and associated warning lights for years. I don't see the disconnect there and would hope the Uniform Manual For Traffic Control Devices mandates, not options such a control device for that location. I don't understand the comparison with going directly to a state source for such a device when it should have been a done deal. Further, I'd like to know why any school existing-or contemplated in this county does not have a police officer as part of the design and security arrangement for security, traffic engineering and enforcement as a total package. This is sound law enforcement-community interaction.

Why doesnt this agency have a traffic division?

In closing, I think that traffic enforcement all over Calvert County is deplorable. "People adjust their driving behavior to the level of enforcement" - that alone is why the high speeds and inattentive driving resulting in egregious colissions and medevacs prevail.

It is very difficult to have such an enforcement presence when you have maybe three deputies and two troopers on-duty to provide law enforcement services-not just traffic enforcement-to a community of 80,000 plus, not counting the business, tourist and motoring public. The State Police are doing a superb job, but are understaffed-and they are not the primary agency.

The time has come for the county to make a profound decision-stop the politicization of law enforcement as we have seen almost daily for about a year-and stop the unprofessional, emotional leadership from the top of the agency-and we can do that on election day. We need professional law enforcement. Calvert County deserves nothing less.

This red light camera thing is a scam for the company providing the cameras and the Counties accepting this Big Brother type of approach to "OUR SAFETY".

I am against this red light camera proposal and will Vote Against any elected official or any official that has been forced upon Calvert County due to POLITICAL REASONS & fAVORS who votes for this money scam !! Whether I like the incumbent or not...........I WILL VOTE AGAINST YOU !!

DOUG...............my proposal if this is forced down our throats (it better not be if we the people say no in a majority !) is to donate ALL monies generated to a foundation like "Make A Wish Foundation" so terminally ill children can have their last wish given to them.

Not only is this a great foundation, but we would take a big step in telling the nation that we care about safety and not money like some counties and donating the money would prove this. I also propose again if this is forced down our throats, to have the company responsible for these cameras to also donate money off of every ticket to our (Calvert County) schools.

I will be leaving on Vacation and will not be able to attend hearings on this proposal, so will someone please copy this message and read it to the board when the hearings take place.
Doug if you could do this I would appreciate it. Also please email me with how my proposal went over.

While I understand anger at politicians who do things for political reasons, your threat to vote against them is a political reason, and so any politician who either votes for or against the proposal has failed according to your notion.

Since data I read a couple of years back on traffic cameras indicated that they did not usually earn enough to pay for the service, and if that data is still accurate, the only reason to install such devices is not income to the county but increasing the policing of intersections without increasing the number of officers.

I would favor more officers on the road instead of cameras (you can talk to an officer at the scene), but I do not see the desire on the part of the country tax payers or the commisioners to increase the number of officers on patrol.

Clyde

While I understand anger at politicians who do things for political reasons, your threat to vote against them is a political reason, and so any politician who either votes for or against the proposal has failed according to your notion

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Cylde..................you are soooooooo wrong. I'm not a real political guy, but will become one on this issue if I have too.

any politician who either votes for or against the proposal has failed according to your notion

Click to expand...

Clyde you need to elaborate on your above statement, or at least stay off the juice. What notion could you possibly be talking about. That must be some good juice !!

Not so fast...

Today my wife was sitting at a stoplight in St. Mary's County and was appalled to watch a school bus run a red light. Thankfully the bus was empty, but could you imagine the results if someone had not been paying attention to the bus?

Red light cameras should be mandatory. Children are being put at risk by unsafe drivers (including the bus drivers themselves). The only way to stop this is by enforcing the law.

Re: Not so fast...

Originally posted by SmallTown
Today my wife was sitting at a stoplight in St. Mary's County and was appalled to watch a school bus run a red light. Thankfully the bus was empty, but could you imagine the results if someone had not been paying attention to the bus?

Red light cameras should be mandatory. Children are being put at risk by unsafe drivers (including the bus drivers themselves). The only way to stop this is by enforcing the law.

Click to expand...

How does having a camera up stop anyone from running the light? It won't, all it will do is get a citation issued to the owner and not necessarily the driver of the vehicle. No points against the driver, no deterrent at all, just a scheme to make money.

The basic fact that is simply an enforcement of the law. If people don't break the law it won't be a money maker at all.

This whole thing seems like the uproar many years back in Virginia when they decided to make it a law to wear a seatbelt in the car. Tons of people came out protesting for the simple reason that people hate being told what to do, even if it saves lives. Laws are not intended for your convenience. They are for protection.

I keep hearing the notion of "someone was riding my tail, I HAD to run the light". You didn't HAVE to do anything. You made the decision. If you were ran a light because of this tailgater and hit a car, killing a lady and her child.. Do you think her husband would really care that someone was riding your bumper?

The more cameras we have, the more times people will pay fines for the laws they are breaking the more they will think twice about doing it. As this progresses, it will eventually make more and more people aware of this serious problem and hopefully reduce the number of people doing the tailgating.

As I have said from the beginning, people need to start taking responsibility for their actions. This is a growing problem, and not just with the redlights.

So someone saw a school bus run a red light in St. Mary's County? That's unfortunate, but I have observed school bus drivers in Calvert and they are very safe drivers. I would have to believe that the overwhelming majority of school bus drivers in St. Marys also do a good job as well and that this incident, if it really did happen, is being used as a desperate ploy in a losing battle to try to drum up support for cameras that are not wanted by the majority of taxpayers who will have to pay for them.
No one who opposes red light cameras is in support of running red lights. What we do support is that our traffic law enforcement has the support of the citizens and that the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, be fair. By being fair, it means that innocent people are not being targeted because the local jurisdiction wants the revenue more than they care about being fair and only ticketing those who commit the infraction. Cameras do not show who was driving the vehicle, only that it was in the intersection when the light turned red.
Three seconds is not enough time for a yellow light to stop traffic at 55+MPH. In intersection studies they have found that by increasing the duration of the yellow light to 4 or 5 seconds that the number of so called "red light runners" are drastically reduced, as much as 85%. This is not rocket science. State legislators need to ask the State Highway Administration to consider increasing the length of yellow lights along Rt. 2/4. That will go a lot further in reducing red light running than setting up cameras. Focus on what has been proven to work, not on what raises money for the politicians to spend.
Sincerely, John Douglas Parran, Calvert County Commissioner

A bit off subject, but from what I am hearing, I need to move to Calvert. The school bus drivers that I have seen here in St. Mary's are scary at the very least. Running lights, cutting in front of people, cutting across traffic, etc. I'm just glad I don't have any kids yet and have them subject to that.

But back on the subject. I am all for anything that will ease the notion of aggressive driving, especially at stop lights. Lengthening the yellow will surely ease the burden, but there will still be those who insist on running the lights and they must be held accountable. But when you open that pandora's box (lengthening the yellow light time), you are subject to all kinds of excuses such as "I was hauling a boat, couldn't stop in time". "I could not stop because of inclement weather"

If you are going at a speed and are unable to stop (because of towing or road conditions, etc) than you shouldn't be going that fast in the first place.

being in St. Mary's county, I see tractor-trailer trucks zooming through red lights all the time on 235. Again, if you can't stop, you we're probably going to fast to begin with. Just yesterday, I was sitting at the light at San Souci(sp?!) plaza going south. A dump truck was sitting in traffic to make the left turn there instead of going straight. The light turned green and the first car in line just sits there. Finally the driver realizes it and goes. By the time the truck got to the light it had already turned red, but he decided that since he had to wait a little extra time because of the people in front of him, he wa somehow "entitled" to run the light. if that wasn't bad enough, he was actually making a U-Turn there which of course really backed up traffic. This guy probably wouldn't have been ticketed by a redlight camera because of his slow speed, but it shows that speed is not the only reason people decide to run lights. People get behind the wheel and think they are somehow above the law and can do whatever we want. Funny how when we are getting our licenses for the first time, it is rammed down our throats that driving is a privledge, not a right. But somehow as we get older this notion flip-flops

If you are going at a speed and are unable to stop (because of towing or road conditions, etc) than you shouldn't be going that fast in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well, there you have it. Cut to the chase common sense.

I'm still running down numbers but from what I'm seeing so far, the reports say that communities with red light cameras are seeing their accident rates go down.

Cameras do not show who was driving the vehicle, only that it was in the intersection when the light turned red.

Click to expand...

Why should that matter? Typically if the driver isn't you, it will be someone in your household - spouse, kid. Is this an issue of points on your license? Because I can't see why it would make a difference.

And how about that St. Mary's bus driver who was arrested for drunk driving a few years back - while he had a busload of kids? Yikes!