New speed camera OK’d on Route 5

[glhs837]

Are there any examples of speed enforcement that are not a cash grab then? Should speed enforcement be done away with by police?

Actually, barring a few extreme cases, speed enforcement doenst make money, when you figure the cost of the officer and his equiment and training. Had thisdicussion with some LEOs on Officer.com who pointed out the math for me. There is, generaly speaking, no amount of tickets an officer can write that will make up for his hourly cost to the taxpayers. then why do it, you ask? Simple, what they get is threefold. One, they get to "show the flag", demonstrating to citizens that they are on the job, doing good things. How many people in Calvert see the officers on the side of Route 4 and think "Good, they are making me safer"? Second, the department gets solid metrics to show work done to political leadership. "See, BOCC, we are enforcing the law!", with the added benefit of numbers being used to qualify for state/federal grant money for mo of the same. Third, and to most cops, at least street level cops, they get "heads in windows". Look over the local crime reports, see exactly how many start with "During a routine traffic stop, the deputy noticed XX, which led to the arres of the driver for XX crime". Look at how officers drive, they know damn well what safe speeds are

Hannibal, there's "rare" and then there's "none". Why spend this effort to solve a non-existant problem? If the only point is to make money, then it's invalid. And since we are not losing kids to speeders, it's simply about money. The only reason the state law restricts them to school zones and work zones (state level only) is to sell them to the public. The industry saw what happened in I think it was AZ, where the public went batshiat crazy to shut them down. So, they sugar coat it with "OMG, the kids/workers!!!!! Wont anyone think of the kids/higway workers?!!!!!" And if you oppose the program, they get to paint you as some lunatic who wants to see Deathrace 2000 played out for real.

 

[vince77]

No one is saying that speed enforcement isn't a necessary evil. What is being said here is that these cameras are being procured and used under the guise of "safety" when moving them from place to place due to revenue falling off is in direct contradiction to that. Hence... the reasoning behind the money grab title.

So warning people entering school zones that their is a photo enforcing speed zone is ahead is a cash cow, police running radar while posting signs they're doing it is a money grab, how about hiding behind a billboard and running radar? Not trying to give you a hard time, just asking for an example of what radar situations you consider is not a cash cow.

 

[vince77]

Actually, barring a few extreme cases, speed enforcement doenst make money, when you figure the cost of the officer and his equiment and training. Had thisdicussion with some LEOs on Officer.com who pointed out the math for me. There is, generaly speaking, no amount of tickets an officer can write that will make up for his hourly cost to the taxpayers. then why do it, you ask? Simple, what they get is threefold. One, they get to "show the flag", demonstrating to citizens that they are on the job, doing good things. How many people in Calvert see the officers on the side of Route 4 and think "Good, they are making me safer"? Second, the department gets solid metrics to show work done to political leadership. "See, BOCC, we are enforcing the law!", with the added benefit of numbers being used to qualify for state/federal grant money for mo of the same. Third, and to most cops, at least street level cops, they get "heads in windows". Look over the local crime reports, see exactly how many start with "During a routine traffic stop, the deputy noticed XX, which led to the arres of the driver for XX crime". Look at how officers drive, they know damn well what safe speeds are

Hannibal, there's "rare" and then there's "none". Why spend this effort to solve a non-existant problem? If the only point is to make money, then it's invalid. And since we are not losing kids to speeders, it's simply about money. The only reason the state law restricts them to school zones and work zones (state level only) is to sell them to the public. The industry saw what happened in I think it was AZ, where the public went batshiat crazy to shut them down. So, they sugar coat it with "OMG, the kids/workers!!!!! Wont anyone think of the kids/higway workers?!!!!!" And if you oppose the program, they get to paint you as some lunatic who wants to see Deathrace 2000 played out for real.

Ok, give me an example of radar use that is not a cash cow. Secondly, if you're opposed to the use of radar to enforce speed limits, what other means do police do to enforce speed limits?

 

[glhs837]

How about we say that setting a nice low fine, so it doenst arouse too much ire, and writing contracts that pay out on a per citation basis which encourage shenanigans, not having any reporting to insurance angencies, allowing a ton of leeway on initial certification testing and required accuracy testing, and the state judiciary refusing to hold counties accountable for breaking the law as written while refusing citizens a proper chane to defend themselves all amount to a cash grab.

Lets face it, if it were truly a deterrant they wanted, its simple. A nice high fine, with points. Officers doing random enforcment of same. Word would get around pretty fast.

 

[SG_Player1974]

So warning people entering school zones that their is a photo enforcing speed zone is ahead is a cash cow, police running radar while posting signs they're doing it is a money grab, how about hiding behind a billboard and running radar? Not trying to give you a hard time, just asking for an example of what radar situations you consider is not a cash cow.

Please re-read my previous post below. I have highlighted the appropriate area to show you the point I was making. I think you are misunderstanding where I am coming from.

No one is saying that speed enforcement isn't a necessary evil. What is being said here is that these cameras are being procured and used under the guise of "safety" when moving them from place to place due to revenue falling off is in direct contradiction to that. Hence... the reasoning behind the money grab title.

 

[vince77]

so what is an appropriate use of radar by police that you don't consider a cash cow? And if you oppose the use of radar, how do police enforce speed limits? That question wasn't answered by either of you. How about an example.

 

[SG_Player1974]

so what is an appropriate use of radar by police that you don't consider a cash cow? And if you oppose the use of radar, how do police enforce speed limits? That question wasn't answered by either of you. How about an example.

No one is arguing that police are NOT using appropriate methods of radar enforcement. NO one is saying that the current methods are not acceptable.

What we are saying... and what I highlighted in my statement above... is that police SAY they are using these cameras for "safety" in school areas and such however, when the REVENUE from these cameras diminish... they move the cameras to generate more REVENUE in a different location.

If it was about safety.... why the need to move the camera?

 

[glhs837]

so what is an appropriate use of radar by police that you don't consider a cash cow? And if you oppose the use of radar, how do police enforce speed limits? That question wasn't answered by either of you. How about an example.

I thought I was pretty clear that officer based enforcement is almost never a cash cow. I think well over 90% of officer performed radar/laser based speed enforcement has no measurable impact on safety, but it's virtually never about making money. As for appropriate, there's very little straight speed enforcement I think is appropriate, it should be done in conjunction with patrol and focussed on the %1 of folks who speed unsafely, like through traffic at a rate far higher than traffic flow. the regular enforcemetn we see on GMR by the golf course, I thinks that's an example of wasted effort, from a traffic safety perspective. Same thing for Sunday morning efforts on Rt 235.

 

[Hannibal]

Hannibal, there's "rare" and then there's "none". Why spend this effort to solve a non-existant problem? If the only point is to make money, then it's invalid. And since we are not losing kids to speeders, it's simply about money.

I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing here honestly. I don't care that they are in school zones and work zones (this one in particular given my profession) as it serves and achieves its purpose well. And while the number may (or may not) support that there wasn't a disproportiante number of incidents in these zones (in comparison to general public), any process that reduces the risks in these zones is OK by me because the risks DO increase when your have an area of young children and cars or workers and cars. And at the end of the day, they (gov't / law) aren't asking the public to do anything different or more stringent. They are simply enforcing an already established law (and the penalties are actually less harsh than if a uniformed officer cited the driver for the same infraction).

My only objection to these cameras and the govt's statement for their use is simple: If they are being used as a means of ensuring safety (as opposed to a cash grab), then they should remain in place to enforce the safety within the areas they deemed as in need (schools / work zones). They shouldn't pull them and relocate them because they've sucked up all the quick money they could and in the interests of reaping a new cash crop at the next location where the motorist's haven't learned. Using them the way they are, they are simply taking advantage of a slow learning curve and reaping a high return on ticket revenue ..... and safety is a far gone priority.

 

[glhs837]

We have points of agreement. I don't care where they are also, because as deployed, they do nothing to enhance safety. So, kids, worker, or circus clowns, if it makes it makes nobody any safer, then location meaningless. I would be okay if they removed the profit/revenue motive, and made the penalties match what an officer could do. We spend millions on safety programs that don't make a dime, it this truly made a difference, we would find a way to fund it.

 

[BernieP]

No one is arguing that police are NOT using appropriate methods of radar enforcement. NO one is saying that the current methods are not acceptable.

What we are saying... and what I highlighted in my statement above... is that police SAY they are using these cameras for "safety" in school areas and such however, when the REVENUE from these cameras diminish... they move the cameras to generate more REVENUE in a different location.

If it was about safety.... why the need to move the camera?

Why, because these camera systems are expensive so the local governments "rent" them via contracts. Those contracts usually guarantee "the company", the provider of the camera and services, a minimum income based on a percentage of the revenue the camera brings in. This is what has caused the irregularities with both the speed enforcement and red light enforcement systems.

 

[glhs837]

Why, because these camera systems are expensive so the local governments "rent" them via contracts. Those contracts usually guarantee "the company", the provider of the camera and services, a minimum income based on a percentage of the revenue the camera brings in. This is what has caused the irregularities with both the speed enforcement and red light enforcement systems.

You have that backwards, very few places buy the systems. They instead buy the service, and the contractor provides the cameras, the calibration, in some cases even the reviewers. Here in MD, supposedly to head off corruption, the law requires a sworn officer to review citations. Oh, in a lot of cases, the contract also requires the company to provide reps to local reporters for PR pieces, advertising, "training" for judges to explain exactly how infallible the systems are.

One interesting tidbit MD law specifically prohibits per citation contracts, but when some citizens challenged a county that has such a deal, first, the citizens were told only the state AG had standing to sue about that. Which, AG, oddly enough, not only didnt sue any of the many counties or municipalities engaging in such contracts, but issued guidance on which legal fig leaf covered the situation best. And now the legislators, having been fed more money from the industry and advice from system operators, have passed both a grandfather clause protecting the local govts from being sued, in case the new AG doesnt get bought and paid for, but made it possible to use a whole new fig leaf, which sounds like it's not per citation, but it is.

 

[vince77]

Actually, barring a few extreme cases, speed enforcement doenst make money, when you figure the cost of the officer and his equiment and training. Had thisdicussion with some LEOs on Officer.com who pointed out the math for me. There is, generaly speaking, no amount of tickets an officer can write that will make up for his hourly cost to the taxpayers. then why do it, you ask? Simple, what they get is threefold. One, they get to "show the flag", demonstrating to citizens that they are on the job, doing good things. How many people in Calvert see the officers on the side of Route 4 and think "Good, they are making me safer"? Second, the department gets solid metrics to show work done to political leadership. "See, BOCC, we are enforcing the law!", with the added benefit of numbers being used to qualify for state/federal grant money for mo of the same. Third, and to most cops, at least street level cops, they get "heads in windows". Look over the local crime reports, see exactly how many start with "During a routine traffic stop, the deputy noticed XX, which led to the arres of the driver for XX crime". Look at how officers drive, they know damn well what safe speeds are

Hannibal, there's "rare" and then there's "none". Why spend this effort to solve a non-existant problem? If the only point is to make money, then it's invalid. And since we are not losing kids to speeders, it's simply about money. The only reason the state law restricts them to school zones and work zones (state level only) is to sell them to the public. The industry saw what happened in I think it was AZ, where the public went batshiat crazy to shut them down. So, they sugar coat it with "OMG, the kids/workers!!!!! Wont anyone think of the kids/higway workers?!!!!!" And if you oppose the program, they get to paint you as some lunatic who wants to see Deathrace 2000 played out for real.

That's some funny stuff

 

[BernieP]

You have that backwards, very few places buy the systems. They instead buy the service, and the contractor provides the cameras, the calibration, in some cases even the reviewers. Here in MD, supposedly to head off corruption, the law requires a sworn officer to review citations. Oh, in a lot of cases, the contract also requires the company to provide reps to local reporters for PR pieces, advertising, "training" for judges to explain exactly how infallible the systems are.

One interesting tidbit MD law specifically prohibits per citation contracts, but when some citizens challenged a county that has such a deal, first, the citizens were told only the state AG had standing to sue about that. Which, AG, oddly enough, not only didnt sue any of the many counties or municipalities engaging in such contracts, but issued guidance on which legal fig leaf covered the situation best. And now the legislators, having been fed more money from the industry and advice from system operators, have passed both a grandfather clause protecting the local govts from being sued, in case the new AG doesnt get bought and paid for, but made it possible to use a whole new fig leaf, which sounds like it's not per citation, but it is.

I think you missed my point, I said they "rent" via contract. While they don't get a specific ticket count, the contracts typically promise a return based on a percentage of the revenue generated.
This is why the companies have pressured the government to "tweak" the lights, or put them in in some rather suspect "school zones".

 

[glhs837]

I think you missed my point, I said they "rent" via contract. While they don't get a specific ticket count, the contracts typically promise a return based on a percentage of the revenue generated.
This is why the companies have pressured the government to "tweak" the lights, or put them in in some rather suspect "school zones".

I see what you are saying. And many do do a specific cut, usually in the %30 range, of each ticket, a bounty system. And Ive yet to find a case here in MD involving light tweaking, more common is a switch to right on red or breaking the stop line ticket to drive up revenue. And there are quite a few rigged school zones, both run on adjacent, but non-involved roadways, or expanded zones, and/or lowered speed limits, all to catch the most people.

 

[huntr1]

Put a couple at the intersections of NB and SB 235. Would probably be enough to eliminate county tax!

Don't forget that these cameras also decrease the need for physical enforcement thus, allowing the powers that be to cut funding/personnel in law enforcement.

Can you point to me where NB and SB 235 intersect?

 

[Suzette]

Oh the horror...you can ONLY drive 12mph above the posted speed limit.

I just received a ticket in the mail and I was going 13 miles above the speed limit. I thought the speed limit was 55 on Route 5 most of the way to 495 (except for three areas I can think of). Says I was on NB MD 5 @ Branch Ave. Metro Station........which I don't understand as I took 495 toward VA when exiting Rt 5 so did not go near the Branch Ave Metro Station. Well, anyway, there is a photo of my car and my license plate so will pay it even though I don't understand the location.

 

[glhs837]

In this place?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...l!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x48f50e30be5b2618

So, it's in MD, that means it has to be in a school zone, also indicated by the 13 mph trigger. And according to this, the school you see there, the New Chapel Christian Academy, is one of the schools in the county rotation.


http://www.princegeorgescountymd.go...ces/speed-camera/locations/Pages/default.aspx


Now look closely.....


https://www.google.com/maps/search/schools/@38.8117677,-76.9158319,709m/data=!3m1!1e3

There's no way in hell any traffic on Route 5 should have any impact on that school. So those cameras are in violation of the states rules for school zones.

 

[GURPS]

There's no way in hell any traffic on Route 5 should have any impact on that school. So those cameras are in violation of the states rules for school zones.

the only impact is on the county budget .... that school has to be 1/2 mile away up Surrats Road

 

[huntr1]

I just received a ticket in the mail and I was going 13 miles above the speed limit. I thought the speed limit was 55 on Route 5 most of the way to 495 (except for three areas I can think of). Says I was on NB MD 5 @ Branch Ave. Metro Station........which I don't understand as I took 495 toward VA when exiting Rt 5 so did not go near the Branch Ave Metro Station. Well, anyway, there is a photo of my car and my license plate so will pay it even though I don't understand the location.

Construction zone ticket, not school zone ticket.