More on St Marys Red Light Cameras.

glhs837

Power with Control
Hmm, interesting article in the Enterprise today. Cliff notes.

1. Commissioner O'Conner does not support them. And he actually works for one of the biggest providers of such equipment in Maryland, Optotraffic. Whats funny is that his objections all appear to be financially based. He says they wont be financially viable unless they are teamed with speed cameras also. He is also reported to have said there are other ways to enforce traffic at intersections. An exact quote... If red light cameras are approved "Every taxpayer in the county should just reach into their pockets and pull out some money and write a check because that's whats going to happen. The programs systematically fail."

I do applaud his honestly. Do note, to him, the only factor spoken of is money. Because he knows you are not buying safety with these systems. The speed cams can still make money becuase you can set up in almost every school zone and shift the cameras around, reducing how much learning affects profit. So, his pitch is that the speed cameras would fund the red light cameras.

2. Commissioner Morgan, of course, continues to support the cameras. He mentions he has no problem doing speed cameras and red light cameras. To him, and I do believe him, this is all about safety. Would like to see him pledge that any excess revenue beyond system operations get refunded to the citizens to reduce the "Free money" aspect of this.

Given his personal situation, his position is understandable. I do wish someone would let him know that these systems do little to nothing to reduce distracted red light violators. And there is an increase in rear end collisions.

3. Sheriff says he does not support speed cameras, as they are seen as cash grabs. Which of course they are. Not sure why he sees that but does not see that RLCs are seen the same way. He also mentions they take a while to start operating "in the black". Does he phrase any other traffic enforcement action as to it operating in the black or red? That is a a telling statement. I'm still not sure about how he really feels. Some enforcement officials feel like our tlwdc, that they really dont care if it makes anyone safer, it's only ticketing lawbreakers, and making money, and that's good. Rear end collision data is ignored or blown off. Some, ones who dont look too deep, really think this is some magic bullet that does all it claims. I would like to think the Sheriff is not that ill informed, but I have not seen what data he used to make his choice to go for these.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Where I live, the city / town does not get a penny so no one can accuse them of trying to make money.
A majority of the people getting tickets are from out of town.
Even though I dislike them, our neighbor was flying up and down the street in his car before he got arrested for DUI and he had an accident about half a block from here for failing to stop at a stop sign and having an accident with speed being an issue.
There was also an elementary school child struck and killed by a car and they actually lowered the speed limit because it is on a hill.
I myself have been hit from behind by someone arrested for DUI and I recently got hit from behind while I was waiting at a red light.

I do think that red lights with cameras should have count down timers that are visible for pedestrians to know when to cross and it also serves as an aid for drivers to know when the light is changing.
I think that red lights need to have some uniformity as in having the same number of seconds that it needs to be on, how long it takes to change and how long it needs to be off; I think there needs to be some standards here because there are lights that don't adhere to standards.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Where is that,Chuck, and who does get the money? Not seeing how any automated enforcement has any bearing on any DUI related offense, if they are okay driving drunk, cameras certainly won't deter them. Can't speak to the school child incident without details. But here in MD, it's a measly $40 fine, no reporting, and you have to be going 12mph over to get a ticket from a speed camera. Here in MD, proponents have had a hard time finding cases to show a need. Our local lights do indeed count down to a light change. There no no federal requirements for light timing, but there are recommendations from the NHTSA. And from what I know, SHA complies with those. Since all the intersections the Sheriff has recommended for cameras are on a State road, that should be no factor.
 

stew77

New Member
check out DC. over 80% of its revenue is from traffic adjudication. Tickets, cross walks, red light cameras, stop light cameras etc. It is strictly for funding for the establishment. Safety does not enter into it!! Another way to "tax" if you look at it. I am totally against them, and so should every citizen who drives. Our form of GOVT is trying its damdest to make and pass laws (requirements?) that make it almost impossible to live with. As they say the rich get richer, and the middle class suffers!!! NO, No, NO to Redlight Cameras and Stop light cameras. We have spent millions of dollars on speed limits and keep adding red lights all up and down the highways. To what avail. Traffic still backs up, (235 and rt 4?, 235 and St Andrews Church Road either direction) Reason being is that I think there is no "common sense" in how the lights are put up and managed. Go down 235 towards base anytime from 0430 to 0800 and try to hit more than 3 lights green, no matter what speed!! Not happening, (I think the persons who set them was drunk!) I am sure the "new" Strip Mall going North out of Hollywood, will have a red light within the first 1/2 mile! Get real folks!! (and GUESS who will pay for it??)
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
check out DC. over 80% of its revenue is from traffic adjudication. Tickets, cross walks, red light cameras, stop light cameras etc. It is strictly for funding for the establishment. Safety does not enter into it!! Another way to "tax" if you look at it. I am totally against them, and so should every citizen who drives. Our form of GOVT is trying its damdest to make and pass laws (requirements?) that make it almost impossible to live with. As they say the rich get richer, and the middle class suffers!!! NO, No, NO to Redlight Cameras and Stop light cameras. We have spent millions of dollars on speed limits and keep adding red lights all up and down the highways. To what avail. Traffic still backs up, (235 and rt 4?, 235 and St Andrews Church Road either direction) Reason being is that I think there is no "common sense" in how the lights are put up and managed. Go down 235 towards base anytime from 0430 to 0800 and try to hit more than 3 lights green, no matter what speed!! Not happening, (I think the persons who set them was drunk!) I am sure the "new" Strip Mall going North out of Hollywood, will have a red light within the first 1/2 mile! Get real folks!! (and GUESS who will pay for it??)

You are right. The crosswalk thing stood out to me. Part of my daughter's territory for her job is DC. Last year she came upon an incident that was happening and traffic was stopped. She was the first car, and her front car tires were like six inches over the crosswalk white lines. She got a ticket which was a high fine. She contested it, and it was waived after a battle. It really has become ridiculous.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
You are right. The crosswalk thing stood out to me. Part of my daughter's territory for her job is DC. Last year she came upon an incident that was happening and traffic was stopped. She was the first car, and her front car tires were like six inches over the crosswalk white lines. She got a ticket which was a high fine. She contested it, and it was waived after a battle. It really has become ridiculous.

Where I live, I believe you just have to stop even if you go over the line.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Where I live, I believe you just have to stop even if you go over the line.

Huh? Of course, you have to stop before you go over the white pedestrian walk line. Maybe, I didn't explain it enough. It was a sudden stop that was not expected. She had to slam on her brakes, and ended up over the line, and the cop walked up to her right away. Didn't make sense. Now, do you get it? It doesn't matter. She got the ticket thrown out. As it should be. I know better than to argue with you. You know everything from the beginning of the Universe. :lol:
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control
Of course, LL, that has very little to do with automated enforcement. Except to point up that with an officer, you legal recourse is much greater. Chuck, where is where you live? I'm curious about the setup there.
 

vince77

Active Member
Speed increases crash severity. Speed cameras target those going 12 mph over the speed limit. Sounds fair to me. Certainly more economical than tying up a cop to record your speed.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Sure does. Of course you only get them in school zones. Been a lot of speed related crashes in St Mary's County school zones? How often do you see officers enforcing in school zones? Which ones?
 

vince77

Active Member
I agree, aside from using speed cameras in school zones, Maryland should expand speed cameras to other roads. I have little sympathy for those going 12 or more mph over the speed limit on any road. Speed kills. Don't you agree?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Poor driving kills far more. Let's go after that, since the NHTSA's own research shows that speeding is only the cause of around 3%of crashes. But, if you require all speed cameras systems to operate by the govt and not private industry and require them to have both transparent operation and revenue neutral funding, I'll be glad to support them. I don't object to enforcing the law. I do object to it being done for profit. And letting that pursuit motive drive systems designed to ensure citizens have no chance in court
 

vince77

Active Member
Poor driving kills far more. Let's go after that, since the NHTSA's own research shows that speeding is only the cause of around 3%of crashes. But, if you require all speed cameras systems to operate by the govt and not private industry and require them to have both transparent operation and revenue neutral funding, I'll be glad to support them. I don't object to enforcing the law. I do object to it being done for profit. And letting that pursuit motive drive systems designed to ensure citizens have no chance in court

Fair enough, actually I think it will all be a moot point in 25 years between driverless vehicles and sensor technology embedded into the roadways.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
See, you say fair enough, and I thank you for seeing beyond the bullet points. Sadly, getting elected officials to say that is not so easy. When what they is see a revenue source that they get to beat opponents over the head with "Why do you hate children and want to see them die under the wheels of felons?".
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Of course, LL, that has very little to do with automated enforcement. Except to point up that with an officer, you legal recourse is much greater. Chuck, where is where you live? I'm curious about the setup there.

http://www.abingtonpd.org/traffic-safety/red-light-cameras/
http://www.abingtonpd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Abington-trifold_Final-Version-121213.pdf

The brochure (.pdf) says they don't make money. The reality is that in some intersections, there is no good place to station a police cruiser.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
The city makes no money, PennDOT, they do. And of course Gatso, the private company, they make a lot of money. Looking a bit deeper, the study they cite to say how effective cameras are was produced by the IIHS, and has been found to have quite a few flaws.

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

Here's an interesting bit about the PennDOT and Abington deal.

http://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/red-light-cameras-ineffective-0

Cynically, I would suspect the deal is that if you place the cameras, PennDOT looks more favorably on your town when deciding where the send the grant money generated by the profits. If any of course. And, of course, since Gatso is on the hook if the cameras dont make money, it's incentivised to make sure the citations keep on coming.
 

ltown81

Member
I am not a fan of any kind of cameras because they make people slam on the brakes and act unpredictably.

In terms of red light camera's, I don't think the majority of people who go through them are blowing through wrecklessly. Rather, it is either mid judging the yellow light (which happens), or plain and simple an accident, not paying attention.

What I have always wanted to see is a yellow light line on the highway. Basically someone goes out and says if travelling the speed limit, this is the line where you will make it through the light in a safe time. If you are behind the line and see a yellow, stop. If you are in front and see a yellow, keep going, but don't accelerate. Then if you put cameras in, give them out to the people who went through the red, and started off beind the line when it turned yellow.

Not a fan of speed cameras. I think humans should do that job.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
You are right, there are two kinds, mot counting drugged or complete lawbreakers like Toecutter. The misjudge folks, who dont know how long a yellow is (for all the lights in question. it's simple, every single one is four seconds. Every single one). and misjudge. Those folks cross through the intersection during what the SHA calls the overlap. For a full second after going red, the opposing traffic stays red. So those folks, they simply are not causing crashes. A second is a long time in an intersection. At 45mph, you are going 66 feet per second. That will take you through most intersections easily. these people make up the majority of tickets even though they cause the least danger to others.

The second kind, the distracted kind, those are the killers. From what I understand, it's one of those that hit Commisioners Morgans wife. And those people, they are not even aware they are approaching a red light. Nor one with a camera. They are checked out. So this sort of thing wont deter them.
 

3CATSAILOR

Well-Known Member
Heard it before

First of all, our police officers know this is about revenue and not safety. Second of all, there is no mention of how or when the radar will be calibrated which has been a requirement. With the situations you described, it sounds like police patrols would be better instead of automated enforcement. In fact, that brings up a good point which has not been addressed.- If there is automated enforcement, wouldn't the police officers go to other locations, leaving the drugged and drunk drivers free to roam our roads. I would think the tendency to patrol other roads more often that do not have automated enforcement is probably likely. You would still have some enforcement in the automated area, but not nearly as much. Plus, the officers themselves don't want to be caught. When you do the speed limit and a police car is nearby, who is the most likely person to pass you above the speed limit? You guessed it. Therefore, who would the speed camera pick up? You guessed it again. It would have no way of knowing the person speeding is a police officer. Of course the person looking at the ticket cameras would dismiss the ticket.

Then it starts the argument of when a police officer's ticket should be dismissed? I can see why the Sheriff doesn't want to get in the middle of the speed camera debate.

As for the timer on red light cameras, that is an OUTSTANDING idea if they have to have them. The same idea is already applied to pedestrian intersections. Why not apply it to cars? There was an editorial in the Enterprise a while ago that mentioned this idea. I agree with it. But, we must not loose the sight of the fact that BOTH are for revenue and neither of them has anything to do with safety. Counties use this to balance their budget. Washington DC is one of many examples.

And by the way, why is the Enterprise so fixated with Commissioner Morgan's wife dying from a car accident because of a young girl who drove through a red light? The Enterprise seems to suggest that if there was a red light camera before the accident occurred, his wife never would have died. The camera is a safe the World thing that all of us should embrace. What a bunch of BS. First of all the police officer who investigated the accident and Commissioner Morgan know the girl was texting at the time she went through the light. Thus, she was a distracted driver. Thus, since she was distracted, she would not have seen the red light. Thus, if she would not have been looking at the light, she still would have went through it during the red cycle. Thus, the accident still out have occurred. Why can't anyone admit the truth? Is it that hard? The Enterprise continues to be in denial. The probably always well be. Maybe its because they are owned by the Post. I don't know. All they had to do is a simply investigation to determine the facts. Anyhow, at this point, it is what it is.





Where I live, the city / town does not get a penny so no one can accuse them of trying to make money.
A majority of the people getting tickets are from out of town.
Even though I dislike them, our neighbor was flying up and down the street in his car before he got arrested for DUI and he had an accident about half a block from here for failing to stop at a stop sign and having an accident with speed being an issue.
There was also an elementary school child struck and killed by a car and they actually lowered the speed limit because it is on a hill.
I myself have been hit from behind by someone arrested for DUI and I recently got hit from behind while I was waiting at a red light.

I do think that red lights with cameras should have count down timers that are visible for pedestrians to know when to cross and it also serves as an aid for drivers to know when the light is changing.
I think that red lights need to have some uniformity as in having the same number of seconds that it needs to be on, how long it takes to change and how long it needs to be off; I think there needs to be some standards here because there are lights that don't adhere to standards.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I did pen a letter to my local commissioner, who never responded, one letter to the editor of the Enterprise, and one to the reporter who wrote that piece. Offering to show them the other side of the debate, since we appear to not even be looking at it. The Enterprises "Opinion" piece today was the most interesting piece of non-opinion I've even seen there. Light on facts, basically just a regurgitation of the article from last week. So far, we get poorly framed snippets of the revenue debate, but not one mention of the real question, why the heck would we get these when there is so much evidence that they simply don't give you any benefit?
 
Top