Looks like I'm not alone... bill to repeal automated enforcement

[glhs837]

Statewide.....

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0436&stab=01&ys=2016RS

At least 33 state legislators get it. Including ours, I might add.

FOR the purpose of repealing the authority of counties and municipalities in the State to 4 use speed monitoring systems to enforce certain highway speed laws; repealing the 5 authority to use work zone speed control systems to enforce certain highway speed 6 laws within work zones; repealing the authority to use traffic control signal 7 monitoring systems to enforce certain traffic control signal laws;

 

[Larry Gude]

Next up, traffic enforcement drones.

 

[vince77]

Does it look promising? There are 188 legislators, what's Governor Hogan stance on automated enforcement?

 

[glhs837]

Does it look promising? There are 188 legislators, what's Governor Hogan stance on automated enforcement?

Hmmm, given recent veto override votes, probably not going anywhere anyway, but at least the conversation is being had on that level. No idea, I don't think the Gov has expressed an opinion, but I suspect it's like gun control/rights, knowing he's a Republican in MD, that's not a fight he would view as being worth having. He's got more important things to spend his limited political capital on. And I get that.

There was a "reform" bill rammed through a couple years back. Would have trimmed the worst excesses back some, and placed some controls and required some transparency. But then MACO (that's the Maryland Association of Counties) had a special off the books session of the biggest automated enforcement users to coordinate legislative strategy. They ensured that any real reform was watered down so much as to be meaningless. And since the AG (the previous one anyway) has shown zero interest in actually requiring the counties to comply with the law, it's sort of a moot point anyway. If an individual sues, he's limited to his case alone. And if you try and form a class action, the State has ruled you have no standing to sue about larger issues regarding the programs themselves, that's the states prerogative.

 

[tblwdc]

Statewide.....

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0436&stab=01&ys=2016RS

At least 33 state legislators get it. Including ours, I might add.

Yea, I don't think you and your 33 legislators are going to make a difference....bwaaaahhhaaaa.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Hmmm, given recent veto override votes, probably not going anywhere anyway, but at least the conversation is being had on that level. No idea, I don't think the Gov has expressed an opinion, but I suspect it's like gun control/rights, knowing he's a Republican in MD, that's not a fight he would view as being worth having. He's got more important things to spend his limited political capital on. And I get that.

There was a "reform" bill rammed through a couple years back. Would have trimmed the worst excesses back some, and placed some controls and required some transparency. But then MACO (that's the Maryland Association of Counties) had a special off the books session of the biggest automated enforcement users to coordinate legislative strategy. They ensured that any real reform was watered down so much as to be meaningless. And since the AG (the previous one anyway) has shown zero interest in actually requiring the counties to comply with the law, it's sort of a moot point anyway. If an individual sues, he's limited to his case alone. And if you try and form a class action, the State has ruled you have no standing to sue about larger issues regarding the programs themselves, that's the states prerogative.

If you can show the state is a party to your complaint, you can then take it to Federal Court.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Does it look promising? There are 188 legislators, what's Governor Hogan stance on automated enforcement?

Even if it got to Gov. Hogan, I believe he would veto it since local law enforcement in various areas of the State are basking in the revenue brought in "the interest of safety. How many of you would like for me to explain to you how there is no "equal protection" under this law? For example, they have a person that picks and chooses while he isn't even the primary accuser. And by the way, how do you meet your accuser since it is a camera? Can you cross examine a camera? The answer of course is "no, you cannot". Thus, where is the legality? And everyone will tell you it has legal standing. The reason you hear this is because it hasn't been challenged with the right questions which could challenge the withstanding of the current law. Remember, even a bad law is legal until it is overturned.

 

[tommyjo]

Even if it got to Gov. Hogan, I believe he would veto it since local law enforcement in various areas of the State are basking in the revenue brought in "the interest of safety. How many of you would like for me to explain to you how there is no "equal protection" under this law? For example, they have a person that picks and chooses while he isn't even the primary accuser. And by the way, how do you meet your accuser since it is a camera? Can you cross examine a camera? The answer of course is "no, you cannot". Thus, where is the legality? And everyone will tell you it has legal standing. The reason you hear this is because it hasn't been challenged with the right questions which could challenge the withstanding of the current law. Remember, even a bad law is legal until it is overturned.

Please see US Court of Appeals, 7th District for your answer:

Plaintiffs contend that vicarious liability offends the substantive component of the due process clause, but that argument is a dud.   Substantive due process depends on the existence of a fundamental liberty interest, see Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-22, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997), and no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.

  - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1118906.html#sthash.f5JK0Zyb.dpuf

You have the link...you can read the rest.

 

[Merlin99]

Yea, I don't think you and your 33 legislators are going to make a difference....bwaaaahhhaaaa.

Those 33 legislators are the sponsors, not the total number who will vote for it.

 

[glhs837]

Yea, I don't think you and your 33 legislators are going to make a difference....bwaaaahhhaaaa.

I suppose you missed the part where I didn't expect it to get anywhere, the point is that for those of you who think I'm some tin foil hat wearing loon, this goes to show I'm not the only one who realizes the folks shilling these systems are carpetbaggers who, since they keep wearing out their welcome in larger cities and on a state level, now have to work smaller venues, like aging rock stars desperate to fill whatever size house they can before it all goes to ####e. That' the only reason they are coming to smaller places like St Marys and Calvert.

 

[vince77]

I suppose you missed the part where I didn't expect it to get anywhere, the point is that for those of you who think I'm some tin foil hat wearing loon, this goes to show I'm not the only one who realizes the folks shilling these systems are carpetbaggers who, since they keep wearing out their welcome in larger cities and on a state level, now have to work smaller venues, like aging rock stars desperate to fill whatever size house they can before it all goes to ####e. That' the only reason they are coming to smaller places like St Marys and Calvert.

If the fines began at 25 mph over the posted speed limit instead of over 12 mph would you then be in favor of them?

 

[glhs837]

If the fines began at 25 mph over the posted speed limit instead of over 12 mph would you then be in favor of them?

Of course not, since my objections have never been about the speed over the limit. My objections in simple terms below in order of concern level.

1. Enforcement should be solving a problem. Keeping with school zones, since that covers the whole state barring Montgomery county. Since nobody has demonstrated an actual problem with speeding in schools zones other than "OMG, wont anyone think of the children!!" meaning crashes and injuries/fatalities of children, or even pedestrians, enforcing the speed limit there is not solving a problem.

2. Enforcement by a private company who has a profit motive in more citations and govts with a revenue motive is a bad precedent, and virtually begs for at best indifference to real results in the name of revenue, and at worst, Chicago style corruption. All for no resulting increase in citizen safety.

3. The two things above drive govts to keep these programs as close to the vest as possible, making it very hard for citizens to either judge real system effectiveness and fight false citations in court. This leads to govts/contractors deliberately setting up systems that obscure operations/effectiveness from citizens and rig the justice system in favor of the govt. These are bad things.

 

[glhs837]

If the fines began at 25 mph over the posted speed limit instead of over 12 mph would you then be in favor of them?

What would it take?

1. Transparency - Easily accessible public records on calibrations and real results (accident statistics, not just reductions in violations) so the people can judge effectiveness.

2. Set Profit/Revenue Neutrality - Vendor makes a set fee per camera, not a "bounty" system where they make a percentage of citations issued. All revenue past that directed into refunds for citizens, this removes the govts interest in increased revenue.

3. Requirements for real studies with real metrics to drive the requirements for cameras, not some "Well, we had crashes, and then we had some more crashes. What's that? You want specific crash data from the places we want to put cameras? Whoa, lets not get crazy here."

4. Real penalties, with like points and stuff. Of course, with that comes the requirement that your system really prove it's case. Speed cameras need to have pictures that back up the radar/laser reading. Here's the industries dirty little secret. They already produce those. In fact, in the early days of these systems in MD, some citizens actually used those pictures to prove they were innocent. Industry removed the detailed time stamp that made that possible, of course, by going from three decimal places to single seconds, at least in the image the citizen receives in the mail

 

[BernieP]

What would it take?

1. Transparency - Easily accessible public records on calibrations and real results (accident statistics, not just reductions in violations) so the people can judge effectiveness.

2. Set Profit/Revenue Neutrality - Vendor makes a set fee per camera, not a "bounty" system where they make a percentage of citations issued. All revenue past that directed into refunds for citizens, this removes the govts interest in increased revenue.

3. Requirements for real studies with real metrics to drive the requirements for cameras, not some "Well, we had crashes, and then we had some more crashes. What's that? You want specific crash data from the places we want to put cameras? Whoa, lets not get crazy here."

4. Real penalties, with like points and stuff. Of course, with that comes the requirement that your system really prove it's case. Speed cameras need to have pictures that back up the radar/laser reading. Here's the industries dirty little secret. They already produce those. In fact, in the early days of these systems in MD, some citizens actually used those pictures to prove they were innocent. Industry removed the detailed time stamp that made that possible, of course, by going from three decimal places to single seconds, at least in the image the citizen receives in the mail

I think to assess a stiffer fine, including points, the driver would have to be identified. That much might be beyond the technology.
Not to worry, all citizens who wish to drive will be required to have an RFID chip implanted - they will call it the paperless driver's license. Police will have scanners and they will bring up your picture on a monitor along with all your information - what a cost savings, no lost licenses, no forgotten, and so forth.
What could possibly go wrong

 

[glhs837]

I think to assess a stiffer fine, including points, the driver would have to be identified. That much might be beyond the technology.
Not to worry, all citizens who wish to drive will be required to have an RFID chip implanted - they will call it the paperless driver's license. Police will have scanners and they will bring up your picture on a monitor along with all your information - what a cost savings, no lost licenses, no forgotten, and so forth.
What could possibly go wrong

The tech can do facial recognition, sorta. But your "wheat/chaff" ratio drops pretty low, reducing profit. And that also increases your court costs as more people see it as worthwhile to fight the citations, not only from a privacy perspective but from a cost/benefit of a stiffer fine being worth the time to fight it. "Not me, your honor, I left my wallet with it's chip in the car when my buddy borrowed it". Annd, we end up back at the real reason for these systems, money. Because, were it really, really about being safer, they would get deployed anyway, even if it cost. But the second these things stop making money, out the door they go, as if the safety never mattered, which of course it didn't. Because if it did, we would be presented with the low cost/no cost options that don't involve shearing the herd, like radar speed signs and engineering solutions like longer yellows, countdown lights, etc.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Please see US Court of Appeals, 7th District for your answer:

  - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1118906.html#sthash.f5JK0Zyb.dpuf

You have the link...you can read the rest.

Thanks. I am glad it went to the Court of Appeals. Thus, it can eventually land in the Supreme Court where I suspect it will have better results. State and local governments are well known to push RLC in the name of safety. I agree with the 7th COA in that there is no fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera in public. This is common sense. The complaint should not have been based on this but on other Constitutional challenges that have a better foundation to within a challenge. Due process may have been an issue, but obviously it was not challenged correctly to show the court enough evidence to prove its case. In time, it will be brought up again. Perhaps on different merits. It will be interesting if it is before the 7th the next time.

 

[glhs837]

Seeing as this was about the proposed legislative action, I was told in another thread that Deb Rey will be having a town hall this Saturday at 10am at the LP Rescue squad. That's the new shiny one between the Library and Great Mills Road on the southern end of FDR Blvd. Think I'll stop in and see if I can mention it to her.

 

[BernieP]

Seeing as this was about the proposed legislative action, I was told in another thread that Deb Rey will be having a town hall this Saturday at 10am at the LP Rescue squad. That's the new shiny one between the Library and Great Mills Road on the southern end of FDR Blvd. Think I'll stop in and see if I can mention it to her.

Well it seems SHA has put a silver bullet into the plan. Commissioner O'Conner said he wasn't surprised by the SHA findings that red light cameras were not supported by the facts
Not a sufficient number of angle collisions, most of the collisions are rear end, they also agree that when cameras are installed they increase rear end collisions.

But it also seems Commissioner Morgan and the Sherriff are sold on the idea that red light cameras will solve the problem - a problem the SHA says doesn't exist.

 

[glhs837]

Where did that come from, Bernie? I didnt get yesterdays Wednesdays paper, was it in there? If the SHA wont approve it, then he's out of luck, since it's their right of way. Not a lot of traffic lights on county roads. Easy to understand Commissioner Morgans position, hard to remove your emotions from an issue when it has cost you a loved one.

 

[BernieP]

Where did that come from, Bernie? I didnt get yesterdays Wednesdays paper, was it in there? If the SHA wont approve it, then he's out of luck, since it's their right of way. Not a lot of traffic lights on county roads. Easy to understand Commissioner Morgans position, hard to remove your emotions from an issue when it has cost you a loved one.

The story title was "Mounting Evidence" and it was the bottom right corner on page 1. Strange enough the only stories I can get online from the Emptyprise are the ones tha are "pro" camera.
Wonder if the on-line editor has an agenda.
I knew Maria, and I am sorry for her loss, but the car that hit her would not have been deterred by a camera, they clearly were not aware of the red light, it wasn't a case of beating a light. Not when you T-bone someone on the cross street (there is not only the delay between amber and red, but between red and the cross traffic getting the green.

BTW, since commissioner Morgan does not believe the SHA methods work, might I suggest he talk to the sheriff about enforcing rules rarely enforced.
- use of headlights in inclement weather.
Most vehicles had them on this morning, but there were those dark color vehicles sandwiched in without lights. Made it appear as if there was an opening in the traffic.

- people who fail to clear their windows
Rear and side windows covered in snow, just where the wipers cleaned or less on the front.

- how many distracted drivers were cited. I forget where I was but my passenger was watching the drivers of vehicles we passed on the cell phones.