Another ase against traffic cameras...

[kom526]

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/09/the-long-difficult-road-to-imperfect.html

John O'Connor testified on Behalf of Optotraffic that photos cannot be used to show speed: "We do not use photos that are taken at two independent times to estimate speed. Why? Because it's inaccurate. You can't do it." and "The photo is actually just secondary evidence that the vehicle was there and it was in motion, that it was there at the time of the occurrence." [ O'Connor has identified himself as "Director of the Law Institute of Maryland" in his linkedin page... an organization which we could find no information for online other than a domain name registration which was opened on September 2011 and which recently expired. He lists himself as formerly the "Program Manager Automated Speed Enforcement Program Seat Pleasant Police Department", a town whose speed cameras are run by Optotraffic. That linkedin page also references the Optotraffic website (snapshot from 9/21/2012). O'Connor reportedly gave similar testimony to this effect on Optotraffic's behalf at numerous hearings.]

This testimony seems to conflict with Optotraffic's own technical document, which states that their equipment is supposed to be able to verify speed: “While the primary evidence for issuing a speeding citation is the calibrated Lane Sensor, the two photos provide the secondary evidence of speeding that is presented to the citation recipient.” and “Since a stationary object is present along with the vehicle, a photographic method also determines speed, guaranteeing fairness”.

I wonder where the 10% funding increase he wants for the SMCSO will be coming from? But wait! Traffic cameras are an enforcement tool, not revenue generators.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"? I knew that you could.

 

[glhs837]

Yep, and while it's hard to argue against the school bus passing cameras, they are the camels nose under the tent, getting folks used to automated enforcement. I think Camerons a good Sheriff, but on this, I think he might be suffering from a willing suspension of critical thinking. "I get a budget plus up, and only lawbreakers pay for it". If you keep those blinders on, sure it looks good. But law enforcement done for a profit motive cannot work out. As shown above, while the beginning of the road is paved with good intentions, it's a slippery slope that leads to the govt turning safe drivers into those paying fines.

The oft unspoken part of this is the erosion of trust in govt and law enforcement. You can only put that lipstick on that pig for so long before the public gets the idea that it hasn't jack to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. You can avoid that for a while by carefully vetting what you learn, so you are not lying when you say "It's for the children, won't anyone think of the children!!!!" You really believe that, becuase you stayed away from any research outside of industry sources. Say you ask an advisory group to look into it for you, with instructions to not review non-industry sources of data. Keeps you soul unstained, that does. "I did my research", you can claim, "I looked at the data!!!!!!" you say. but in truth, you are a consumer who filtered your review data on Amazon to only five star reviews. And the citizenry, after a while, WILL do that research for you, and then, eventually, after losing the respect of the populace, you will be forced to admit that perhaps it doesnt really buy safety, just money.

 

[kom526]

Yep, and while it's hard to argue against the school bus passing cameras, they are the camels nose under the tent, getting folks used to automated enforcement. I think Camerons a good Sheriff, but on this, I think he might be suffering from a willing suspension of critical thinking. "I get a budget plus up, and only lawbreakers pay for it". If you keep those blinders on, sure it looks good. But law enforcement done for a profit motive cannot work out. As shown above, while the beginning of the road is paved with good intentions, it's a slippery slope that leads to the govt turning safe drivers into those paying fines.

The oft unspoken part of this is the erosion of trust in govt and law enforcement. You can only put that lipstick on that pig for so long before the public gets the idea that it hasn't jack to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue. You can avoid that for a while by carefully vetting what you learn, so you are not lying when you say "It's for the children, won't anyone think of the children!!!!" You really believe that, becuase you stayed away from any research outside of industry sources. Say you ask an advisory group to look into it for you, with instructions to not review non-industry sources of data. Keeps you soul unstained, that does. "I did my research", you can claim, "I looked at the data!!!!!!" you say. but in truth, you are a consumer who filtered your review data on Amazon to only five star reviews. And the citizenry, after a while, WILL do that research for you, and then, eventually, after losing the respect of the populace, you will be forced to admit that perhaps it doesnt really buy safety, just money.

The "EXPERT" witness for Optotraffic is now a St. Mary's County Commissioner and part of his campaign was to increase funding to the SMCSO by 10%. Notice the title he had with Seat Pleasant PD.

 

[glhs837]

The "EXPERT" witness for Optotraffic is now a St. Mary's County Commissioner and part of his campaign was to increase funding to the SMCSO by 10%. Notice the title he had with Seat Pleasant PD.

Well, I guess the Sheriff has one vote in the bag. Yeah, that title thing is a funny story. They recently passed a feel good reform law concerning automated enforcement, one part of which was the requirement for an "ombudsman" position, to ensure the citizens faced with such systems get a fair shake. Well, what's happened is that in most places the so-called ombudsman is actually the program coordinator, completley missing the point behind such a position. The so-called citizens advocate is actually the person charged with making sure the system operates as designed, meaning to make the maximum amount of dollars. Not the maximum amount of justice.

 

[justiceforall]

I wonder where the 10% funding increase he wants for the SMCSO will be coming from? But wait! Traffic cameras are an enforcement tool, not revenue generators.

Can you say "Conflict of interest"? I knew that you could.

I can say conflict of interest if I wanted to but I would prefer to say sore loser! Emphasis on loser!

 

[justiceforall]

Well, I guess the Sheriff has one vote in the bag. Yeah, that title thing is a funny story. They recently passed a feel good reform law concerning automated enforcement, one part of which was the requirement for an "ombudsman" position, to ensure the citizens faced with such systems get a fair shake. Well, what's happened is that in most places the so-called ombudsman is actually the program coordinator, completley missing the point behind such a position. The so-called citizens advocate is actually the person charged with making sure the system operates as designed, meaning to make the maximum amount of dollars. Not the maximum amount of justice.

It's always the same old song with you. It's about the money blah blah blah. Tell me how can a camera on a bus ONLY be about the money? Tell me how that camera is not at least equally about enforcing the law!

 

[glhs837]

Yep, and while it's hard to argue against the school bus passing cameras, they are the camels nose under the tent, getting folks used to automated enforcement..

It's always the same old song with you. It's about the money blah blah blah. Tell me how can a camera on a bus ONLY be about the money? Tell me how that camera is not at least equally about enforcing the law!

Reading, it's fundamental. There, I took away all those other distracting words to make it easy for you, even bolded the part you need to focus on. In case it wasn't clear, I mean to say that I dont see a valid complaint against the bus passing cameras, although I would like to see a better explanation of the financial setup. It's not quite clear how that contract is set up.

Hell, I'm even okay with automated enforcement if it's set up in such a way as to remove the revenue profit motive, Anything other than operating costs gets sent right back to the citizens as a tax rebate. If it's truly not about the money, the folks who love these so much should be willing to do that.........

 

[justiceforall]

Reading, it's fundamental. There, I took away all those other distracting words to make it easy for you, even bolded the part you need to focus on. In case it wasn't clear, I mean to say that I dont see a valid complaint against the bus passing cameras, although I would like to see a better explanation of the financial setup. It's not quite clear how that contract is set up.

Hell, I'm even okay with automated enforcement if it's set up in such a way as to remove the revenue profit motive, Anything other than operating costs gets sent right back to the citizens as a tax rebate. If it's truly not about the money, the folks who love these so much should be willing to do that.........

F**** you and your reading is fundamental.... Who cares what you want. Run for office or stfu! You know what. The guy who wants camera's ran for office and won.

 

[glhs837]

Ah, yes, the final resort of the poor debater Notice he didn't run on cameras. Guess what, not only office holders get to speak up, nice conceptof government you have, if you don't run for office, you cant speak out. Too damn bad, you're in the wrong country for that. Here in this country, we have this thing, if you read some, you might have heard of it, called freedom of speech. You tried to debate the point, and got it handed to you, don't go away mad I'm going to do some PIA requests, and when cameras rear their heads in public again, I'll be around. the last crop of commissioners was dead set against them, maybe the Sheriff will have better luck this time.

 

[BernieP]

Ah, yes, the final resort of the poor debater Notice he didn't run on cameras. Guess what, not only office holders get to speak up, nice conceptof government you have, if you don't run for office, you cant speak out. Too damn bad, you're in the wrong country for that. Here in this country, we have this thing, if you read some, you might have heard of it, called freedom of speech. You tried to debate the point, and got it handed to you, don't go away mad I'm going to do some PIA requests, and when cameras rear their heads in public again, I'll be around. the last crop of commissioners was dead set against them, maybe the Sheriff will have better luck this time.

recently finished a book where one of the prevailing themes was an ill informed public and their willingness to sacrrifce their cosntitutional rights in the name of safety.
Because it has not happened to them, people are willing to resort to the demagogory of, "well if you don't have anything to hide", or "if you aren't doing something illegal" and the ever popular, "it's only about enforcing the law".

So we ignore the primary incentive to the service provider, "revenue".
We ignore the past abuses of the system from illegally placed systems to timing changes in order to meet the promised profit margin.

Unless challenged by the media, the average citizen is not afforded his constutional rights to face his accuser. Peiople have asked for the calibration data for the cameras and judges have blown them off - the sworn word of the officer (who it might later be proved didn't actually review the data but some clerk did" is good enough.

No, the people who question the motives and the legality of these systems are the bad people.