More on St Marys Red Light Cameras.

[3CATSAILOR]

White line

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.

In Maryland it is illegal to stop beyond a white line when one is present.

 

[glhs837]

True, but very few officers will ever write that, unless they are looking fro an excuse to pull over a car that they are looking hard at anyway. Much more common here in MD is places where red light cam profits have dropped off, and suddenly, the operators will decide to change them from jusr red light running over to also tagging right on red violations, and some have added the stop line violation. That's why asked.

 

[BernieP]

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?

The Enterprise doesn't ask questions, they print the press release they are handed by the county PAO. Rarely do you see anything critical.
The paper reflects the mentality of the population of the county, don't ask questions, if the people in Leonardtown tell me it's good, it's good.
Only law breakers get tickets or arrested, if the cops pulled you over, you must have been doing something wrong.
In the camera cases the people pushing the cameras are using the information they get from the vendors, so the Emptyprize is basically printing the sales pitch from the vendor.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

In my own opinion this statement is not accurate. Here is why - When I was a police officer, I witnessed a traffic violation that I was going to stop a person for. However, the area I would have liked to stop him was not a safe place to do so for him or me. Therefore, I followed him further down the road where it was safe. When his court case came up the defense attorney and the judge asked why the actual stop was several miles down the road from where the violation took place. I testified that it was because of the safety of person I stopped as well as myself which is why there was a distance between the two locations. "Both" the judge and the defense attorney agreed. You should note that the defense attorney didn't have a problem with the difference in the location. The attorney was smart enough to realize that I was concerned about the driver's safety as much as my own. The attorney knew that any jury for this case would see right through any argument about the difference of the stop from the violation. The judge said continue with the case. I did. And he was convicted. This is why I do not understand our Sheriff's suggestion that Route 235 has unsafe areas in the California area to stop a person. I have observed the MSP do this without any problems. And I have observed the STS buses pick up folks from the far right lane without any problems as well. It could be the Sheriff is aware of some information about the area I don't know such as accident statistics etc. In my opinion, if our police officers had a situation such as I did with similar testimony, I doubt there would be a problem.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

You are looking at it from a negative prospective. It is a safety issue to let drivers know that they have "x" amount of time to safely stop with a count down timer. Already documented evidence has shown that driver's slam on the brakes once it turns red. And this is the "sober" drivers I am talking about. You are absolutely correct. - It should remain at 5 seconds as SHA has for the vast majority of our lights that DO NOT have automated enforcement. Time and time again across our Country which has been documented on the Internet, newspapers, court testimony and elsewhere that red light camera cycle to red from amber has been altered to 4 seconds or less. In many cases this has resulted in many elderly drivers whose reaction time is slower and who can least afford a ticket to get a ticket.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

I have gone "in person" to the County Commissioner "open forum" meetings to testify about this and other issues. I strongly urge you and all other folks to do the same. Please note that automated enforcement will NEVER be put to a vote in front of our people. It would easily be voted down by the people. I predict the Commissioners will pass it and stuff it down the public's throat in what they will say is a safety issue. Watch out for Code Home Rule. They want it so bad, they can taste it. With Code Home Rule, they can change the automated radar or camera tickets to any amount they want. The public will be their fish and they will be frying them in their pan. Code Home Rule is merely the hook the Commissioners will use against the public. From there, the public will feel the heat of the frying pan.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

You are correct that there is other automated enforcement besides what the public usually hears about. Stop sign automated enforcement is one of the latest ones on the block. I noticed there are several roads in St. Mary's County that now have white stop lines, even though any 16 year old driver knows he has to stop behind a stop sign. The "stop line" is intended to show up on the picture. As I said previously in this thread, if you go beyond the stop line it is in a violation. This applies to a stop sign as well as a stop light. If the Commissioners allow just one of the automated enforcement, it opens a Pandora box for ANY automated enforcement. By the time the public realizes what happened to them, it will be too late to turn back. Sure, the Commissioners will be one term Commissioners if the vote for automated enforcement. They know it. But, the revenue temptation is too great while they enjoy it in office. They will try to point to the public all of the "good things" they will claim they did with the revenue. But, it reality the public will know it is their money that the Commissioners stole from them just like a new tax would be.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

My observation is the Enterprise will go along with anything any County agency or Sheriff's Office is trying to push; unless there is gross negligence pointing to another direction.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

The Enterprise doesn't ask questions, they print the press release they are handed by the county PAO. Rarely do you see anything critical.
The paper reflects the mentality of the population of the county, don't ask questions, if the people in Leonardtown tell me it's good, it's good.
Only law breakers get tickets or arrested, if the cops pulled you over, you must have been doing something wrong.
In the camera cases the people pushing the cameras are using the information they get from the vendors, so the Emptyprize is basically printing the sales pitch from the vendor.

Well said Bernie!

 

[glhs837]

You are looking at it from a negative prospective. It is a safety issue to let drivers know that they have "x" amount of time to safely stop with a count down timer. Already documented evidence has shown that driver's slam on the brakes once it turns red. And this is the "sober" drivers I am talking about. You are absolutely correct. - It should remain at 5 seconds as SHA has for the vast majority of our lights that DO NOT have automated enforcement. Time and time again across our Country which has been documented on the Internet, newspapers, court testimony and elsewhere that red light camera cycle to red from amber has been altered to 4 seconds or less. In many cases this has resulted in many elderly drivers whose reaction time is slower and who can least afford a ticket to get a ticket.

I'm open to any evidence that the lights on 235 from Gate 2 to Rt 4 NB and SB and a little ways beyond have ever been 5 seconds. I was told they were four I think three or four years ago by an SHA rep that those were all three and I been watching them since then, and I've not found any that vary from that. It is true that increasing yellows by 1/2 second or more decreases violations more than cameras. But, here's the key, once you start talking violations instead of crashes, you are losing, becuase you are arguing on their terms. The point is to reduce crashes, not violations.

 

[BernieP]

I'm open to any evidence that the lights on 235 from Gate 2 to Rt 4 NB and SB and a little ways beyond have ever been 5 seconds. I was told they were four I think three or four years ago by an SHA rep that those were all three and I been watching them since then, and I've not found any that vary from that. It is true that increasing yellows by 1/2 second or more decreases violations more than cameras. But, here's the key, once you start talking violations instead of crashes, you are losing, becuase you are arguing on their terms. The point is to reduce crashes, not violations.

the cameras aren't meant to decrease violations, if they did that, they would put themselves out of business in short order.
Never lose sight of the money, this is private industry, not government. The companies are in this business to make a profit. That means each camera has to bring in enough revenue to cover the manufacturing of said camera and all associated costs, plus cover the operation of the system and then return a profit to the company, plus money to the government.

 

[glhs837]

Even if they are not meant to, they do. Especially in a place like this, where it's not a huge transient population like other places. They key is, do they drop so low that they stop being profitable? Or does it get down to a base level of violations that stays in the black? If you are commuter community with lots of pass through traffic, you can see where that would be possible. Same with tourist areas (VA Beach, I'm looking at you). Here in MD, there are quite a few places where it did just that, the amount of violations dropped down to where it wasn't profitable. What happens then is one of a few of things. Either the city/county decides maybe all that safety wasn't needed after all and the contract doesn't get renewed, or they add more locations, or they decide to go after right on red and stop line violations. After the screaming about the need for safety, they look silly saying they need to go after right on red, but they usually just stick with "Well, it's a violation".

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/search/label/Red Light Cameras

Do some reading. One reason why arguing violations vs crashes is a sucker bet. And why I would love to see what data the Sheriff is using to justify his move towards the cameras. I suspect it's a vendor produced violation count, not a statistical study of actual crashes. Because an actual count of crashes might be pretty slim pickings to base such a program on. I know when I did a PIA request for crashes due to running red lights, I was told by both the State and the County that the data couldn't be searched that way, they would be lumped into all the failing to obey traffic device crashes, so picking red lights out of the others was impossible. Oh, Mrs Morgan and that person who died at First Colony will be mentioned. But a sample size of two over who knows what timeframe is pretty hard to work with. Oh, and there's this.

http://www.fox10tv.com/story/16590192/red-light-cameras-center-of-discussion-at-police-board-meeting

Cliff notes. Kansas City police actually had data, and it showed that the cameras actually increased rear end collisions. But oddly enough, they followed that up with "Well, might be more data, so we won't recommend trashing them".

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

What's funny about this one is that it specifically analyzed the IIHS report I believe is the center point in our Sheriffs argument for the cameras.

"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 model’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."

"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."

 

[bilbur]

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

Unfortunately that is how all government, state and federal, work. Contracting out a certain task or project is the in thing right now. I work for a contractor that supports a particular network infrastructure for the navy. We charge every facility that connects to our infrastructure, we have the authority to shut them down without a refund for certain infractions agreed upon under the contract, and we have the authority to fine them if they cause an outage on behalf of the federal government. The government pays us and so do the other contractor facilities to use our services. This can all be done by government employees but the government decided it wanted to contract out the tasking, setup, maintenance, staffing, and all the liabilities that go along with the task order. This is the way I view the red light and speed cameras. The task is contracted out and it is configured to predetermined specifications. I am sure just like the navy has government people oversee our contract the local government has someone that oversees this endeavor. I would like the whole operation to be owned and operated by the local government too but that is not the way things are working right now.

 

[glhs837]

The difference is that this is law enforcement, where the vendor makes more money by citing more motorists. I don't mind this function being contracted really, were it not for the revenue and for profit motive of the state and vendor respectively. Govt oversight of such contracts vary, and unlike your contract with the Navy, the ones providing oversight in this case are usually part of the organization the receives a larger benefit if the revenues are increased, namely, the local government.

As I have always said, remove the profit motive, by putting the vendor on a straight service contract. One years service of the cameras for $XX, no matter how many citation are issued or not. Same for government sponsors. After specific costs, meaning the deputy to review the citations as required by law, not one dime into govt coffers, even if earmarked "for the children" or local infrastructure. Every dime not spent on administering the program directly goes back to the citizens in rebates. But of course, that wont happen because it's about the money. Charles ran a red light camera system for years, maybe 20 or more. But once the option to make it for profit came up, they jumped.

 

[BernieP]

It's an environment that invites bending rules, but hey, "we are doing it for the children" is always good camouflage. Besides, who's watching? The public? The courts?
I've heard stories of people trying to challenge tickets in other jurisdictions where the judge just dismissed their challenge. They asked about calibration, etc. They asked for all the safeguards to be provide in court and the judge just said, guilty as charged, pay up.
So, unless you want to hire a lawyer at say 10 to 20 times the cost of the ticket, and considering the ticket does not carry points, there really is no reasonable oversight.
Even after successful legal challenges showed massive irregularities the systems are back and running the same as always.

 

[glhs837]

Agreed on that Bernie. The system is designed to protect itself and it's revenue stream. And the Sheriffs and Commissioners apparent lack of caring about data outside of vendor provided stuff is what concerns me. The camera companies are carpetbaggers in to make what they can before the citizenry gets fed up and demands they get removed. So, coming in, getting the legislation passed to allow them, like they spent over 600K on here in MD, they make sure it has protections for the system. And if there is negative press, like we had a few years back, they make sure that any "reform" is toothless. Combine that with special training for the judges to ensure they see things the right way, and a state govt that refuses to intervene in the interests of it's citizens, and refuses them legal standing when they act on their own, and it's a rigged game.

 

[BernieP]

Revenue sharing is the only way it works (fiscally). No government would want to pony up a flat fee to the vendor in hopes of some minor return (if any).
They no more believe the BS than you or I do. If the revenue wasn't there, they would not be talking. But it's pitched to them as "free money", they don't have to put anything out, they don't have any exposure/risk.
Politicians would have a hard time selling the costs unless they can show "lives saved" and it better be a significant number - a meaningful statistic, not just a marginal change.

 

[glhs837]

I would love to have the "lives saved" conversation. But they wont have that talk. They will talk about reduction in violations and let you assume that translates into saved lives. But if you try and take that conversation to the point of asking why they think a system that doesn't reduce the number of "late" runners will save lives when it's the late runners that actually kill, you will get steamrolled as someone who hates people and wants to run red lights all day, because you hate people and are a selfish prick.

 

[BernieP]

I would love to have the "lives saved" conversation. But they wont have that talk. They will talk about reduction in violations and let you assume that translates into saved lives. But if you try and take that conversation to the point of asking why they think a system that doesn't reduce the number of "late" runners will save lives when it's the late runners that actually kill, you will get steamrolled as someone who hates people and wants to run red lights all day, because you hate people and are a selfish prick.

because I don't think they can show it. Every day people coming out of Chancellors Run Road are running the red, not just one, but several on each turn of the light. But because they come through following the yellow, the people on Rt 235 don't move until the intersection is clear - which is a law in most states. There are no collisions because when 235 gets the green, people are aware and just wait. Those violations might be cut down.
But the person who blows through a light "at speed' is either DWI or unaware of what they are doing. The fact that the car in front of you went through the intersection is a message you process as "all clear", therefore you are less likely to register the vehicle that's about to broadside you and take action. Even an officer directing traffic would likely not stop that.
Yes, some of those, or most are probably distracted drivers. If they aren't aware of the intersection, they certainly aren't concerned about a camera.
But that's what I would say is common sense, we are talking about politicians that see money and the "cause" is just high cover.

 

[bilbur]

because I don't think they can show it. Every day people coming out of Chancellors Run Road are running the red, not just one, but several on each turn of the light. But because they come through following the yellow, the people on Rt 235 don't move until the intersection is clear - which is a law in most states. There are no collisions because when 235 gets the green, people are aware and just wait. Those violations might be cut down.
But the person who blows through a light "at speed' is either DWI or unaware of what they are doing. The fact that the car in front of you went through the intersection is a message you process as "all clear", therefore you are less likely to register the vehicle that's about to broadside you and take action. Even an officer directing traffic would likely not stop that.
Yes, some of those, or most are probably distracted drivers. If they aren't aware of the intersection, they certainly aren't concerned about a camera.
But that's what I would say is common sense, we are talking about politicians that see money and the "cause" is just high cover.

I agree with you in most cases but the light at 235/245 is dangerous and a fatality waiting to happen. I have seen more large trucks blow through that intersection than any other in the county, sometimes they will blow their horn and sometimes they don't. On more than one occasion I blew my horn to make the cars from 245 aware when I noticed a truck was going to run the red. There was just a 3 or 4 car accident there recently with one overturned and on fire. This is a dangerous intersection and it is all due to the red light runners.