So, I-team, how about some real investigation...?

[slotpuppy]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Hard to get details on that system. I think the county ran it for years themselves and made little to no money on it. But I think they have now gone for a vendor, and with that change comes the profit motive, and that's when things usually go south. Are they placing more cameras because they have a bigger safety problem, or because they want more revenue? Once the profit motive is part of the calculation, no easy way to tell.

When I sit at a stoplight in waldorf during rush hour and my light turns green, but I still have to wait for 4 or 5 cars to run a red light before I can go, I dont give a damn who is making money, everyone of those cars deserves a ticket.

Yes, this happens every day at the 228 & 301 stoplight.

[Baja28 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Baja, yet again, you only seem to care about these on a personal level. So you are okay with jurisdictions ignoring state law and rigging the systems to prevent you from having a day in court when the system is wrong? Your case was easy to fight, as was mine, but many thousands are not, should they get screwed over?

If this was widespread, unadulterated corruption then I would agree with you but it's not. Sure they have found a few instances where errors were made or equipment malfunctioned or people blatantly didn't do their job. That happens with anything. I don't see this being the concern you seem to have for it.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by slotpuppy

When I sit at a stoplight in waldorf during rush hour and my light turns green, but I still have to wait for 4 or 5 cars to run a red light before I can go, I dont give a damn who is making money, everyone of those cars deserves a ticket.

Yes, this happens every day at the 228 & 301 stoplight.

Originally Posted by Baja28

If this was widespread, unadulterated corruption then I would agree with you but it's not. Sure they have found a few instances where errors were made or equipment malfunctioned or people blatantly didn't do their job. That happens with anything. I don't see this being the concern you seem to have for it.

Well, why not push for a real penalty, one that actually deters them. If there are that many violators, then obviously, a simple $75 dollar fine with no further repercussions is not working.

But those few cases are the tip of the iceberg. Baja, most automated enforcement contracts in MD are on a per citation basis, a clear violation of MD law. This was acknowledged by the court in the dismissal of a recent class action case involving automated enforcement. but since it wasn't the main point of the case, it was mentioned with no action directed. Dead officers signing citations, vendors clearing backlogs of citations using an officers login, clearly showing the rubberstamp nature of the law enforcement oversight, constant issues with calibration logs being pencil whipped.

I have issues with law enforcement soley for public revenue and private profit. Law enforcement should be done to force compliance, not to line anyones pockets.


Oh, and about that IIHS study quoted in the news piece? By these three individuals working for the Florida Public Health Review

Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD, John T. Large, PhD

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fphr12.pdf

In February 2011, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) disseminated their research study that compared red light running traffic fatality rates between cities that implemented red light camera (RLC) programs with cities that did not. The IIHS researchers concluded cities that used RLCs had a significantly larger percentage reduction in both red light running (RLR) fatality rates and total fatality rates at signalized intersections. Because a previous IIHS study on RLCs was found to use flawed research methods, as well as to incorrectly report findings, the current IIHS RLC analysis is reviewed for adherence to scientific methods.

Our review reveals the 2011 IIHS study is logically flawed and violates basic scientific research methods that are required for a study’s findings to be valid. It has neither internal nor external validity. More importantly, the IIHS did not fully explain the results of its analysis. Correctly interpreting its odel’s results actually shows that cities using RLCs had an estimated higher rate of red light running fatalities, specifically 25%, than cities that did not use RLCs in the period “after” cameras were used.

Further, the IIHS study was only able to make statements suggesting favorable results from the use of RLCs due to the biased selection of sampled cities. The red light running fatality rate as well as the total fatality rate at all signalized intersections in cities that used cameras was higher in both the “before” and “after” time periods, which affirms that superior interventions exist. Also, we explain the IIHS’ financial conflict of interest regarding photo enforcement

[Baja28 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Well, why not push for a real penalty, one that actually deters them. If there are that many violators, then obviously, a simple $75 dollar fine with no further repercussions is not working.

But those few cases are the tip of the iceberg. Baja, most automated enforcement contracts in MD are on a per citation basis, a clear violation of MD law. This was acknowledged by the court in the dismissal of a recent class action case involving automated enforcement. but since it wasn't the main point of the case, it was mentioned with no action directed. Dead officers signing citations, vendors clearing backlogs of citations using an officers login, clearly showing the rubberstamp nature of the law enforcement oversight, constant issues with calibration logs being pencil whipped.

I have issues with law enforcement soley for public revenue and private profit. Law enforcement should be done to force compliance, not to line anyones pockets.

Oh, and about that IIHS study quoted in the news piece? By these three individuals working for the Florida Public Health Review

Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD, John T. Large, PhD

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fphr12.pdf

Ok look at it this way.... It's a fee to allow you to speed or run red lights.

Every jurisdiction needs revenue. I have no problem with them getting it from law breakers. I've paid a few myself.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by Baja28

Ok look at it this way.... It's a fee to allow you to speed or run red lights.

Every jurisdiction needs revenue. I have no problem with them getting it from law breakers. I've paid a few myself.

So, you have given up on saftey One of my points all along My point all along has been that making it a simple fee that allows lawbreaking is wrong. Your okay with speeding and running reds? As long as it makes money? You didnt start out this thread with those arguments

[Baja28 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

So, you have given up on saftey One of my points all along My point all along has been that making it a simple fee that allows lawbreaking is wrong. Your okay with speeding and running reds? As long as it makes money? You didnt start out this thread with those arguments

No I'm not ok with it. I just see no reason to obsess over it.

I come through the intersection slotpuppy mentioned everyday (228/301) and see the red light runners. I love watching the flashes knowing they're all getting tickets.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by Baja28

No I'm not ok with it. I just see no reason to obsess over it.

I come through the intersection slotpuppy mentioned everyday (228/301) and see the red light runners. I love watching the flashes knowing they're all getting tickets.

Wouldnt you rather they actually get tickets with real repercussions, like an officer can hand out? Remember, it's supposed to be about increasing safety.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Wouldnt you rather they actually get tickets with real repercussions, like an officer can hand out? Remember, it's supposed to be about increasing safety.

Some of us dont care if its about safety or money.
the more the tickets bring in, the less that is required to be taken from my pocket to fund things.

I say, put them on every light in the state and double the fines.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by bcp

Some of us dont care if its about safety or money.
the more the tickets bring in, the less that is required to be taken from my pocket to fund things.

I say, put them on every light in the state and double the fines.

That's fine, I only wish the politicians and LEOs who proclaim the systems are only for safety would be so honest. Part of my whole "Lets stop accepting lying and corruption as the norm in our elected officials."

Demand better.

But we do need to talk about your ridiculous idea that politicians getting more money somewhere else means they need less of yours Silly man, they only find new things to spend on. Has DC dropped it tax rates? Baltimore? Not that I'm aware of.