From May 2 to Aug. 15, a speed camera van captured nearly 50 incidents per hour of drivers going at least 11 miles over the 35 mph speed limit.
Does anyone think those Maryland drivers are orders of magnitude worse than us? Of course not. The simple fact is that a great number of people speed and many speed excessively. In order to slow drivers down to make safer roads we don't need excessive fees, we need constant supervision. Yes, just like little kids.
"These were selected because they had a high traffic volume, and drivers were resistant to behavior change," Didone said. Officials decided where to put the cameras based on traffic volume, crash data and speeding violations. "They needed more focused enforcement... When the [speed camera] vans went away, the speeds went back up," he said.
Despite the fact that most people will hate it, this really is a win-win situation.
First off, the fines are much lower than a standard ticket. A basic speeding ticket that is given to you by an officer will yield a fine in the $50-$100 range, court costs in the $75 range, plus about 5 years of increased insurance rates - which is probably the most costly aspect for a basic ticket. And you get points on your license... which you can remove for more money. The tickets for MoCo speed cameras are $40 - end of story.
Second, as the reasonable and rational drivers slow down knowing that they are very likely to get caught by the cameras, the truly bad drivers will stand out and the police officers can focus on busting them. No doubt they will have more success since they will not be wasting time writing tickets to the vast majority of reasonable drivers who have slowed down.
So for everyone bitching that the CRFs are needed for safety, I suggest looking the opposite direction for real results. Quantity (lots of low cost tickets) is going to have a much stronger impact on the average drivers than quality (few high cost tickets). If drivers think there is a high probability they'll get a ticket, even a low cost ticket, they'll respond by driving slower. If they know high cost tickets are possible but unlikely because the odds of getting pulled over are minimal, they'll be less likely to respond.
Kudos to MoCo on a real move forward in terms of safety.
Eye on the Homeland
A plan to use spy satellites for domestic purposes needs to be carefully managed.
Saturday, August 25, 2007; Page A14
POWERFUL intelligence satellites have been used domestically for years on an ad hoc basis -- for example, to assess damage after a natural disaster, to help with security at major events or for scientific studies. The FBI called in spy satellite help when tracking the Washington area snipers. Now, the Bush administration is forming a unit within the Department of Homeland Security to enable more routine domestic use of satellite imagery -- for purposes such as protecting the borders and helping local law enforcement.
Republican and/or Democrat = Same, same, same.
I suggest cameras in the home, and at work. 24 hour a day monitoring by Police. It's the only way. It's for the children!
I also feel strongly that the technology in question is a red herring on a two levels.
First, speed cameras are one technical solution to a problem that could be addressed a number of ways, and specifically with manpower alone. A government could hire a police officer for every street to enforce speed laws - but that wouldn't happen due to cost. The introduction of technology (a camera) drastically reduces cost but has a similar effect. It is not doing anything that couldn't be done by a person working within our currently accepted rules/laws governing privacy.
Second, if the question is technology aiding law enforcement, where do we draw that line? Should police be allowed to use computers? Or radios? Or automobiles? Or modern forensics? Of course the latest and greatest technology should be available - unless you want to give law breakers a better chance at getting away with their crime (if so, why?).
The real question gets back to were to draw that line in the use of technology. Cameras in our homes, in our cars, in our places of work, and so on would catch more criminals. But I think that's going too far and IS an invasion of privacy.
But cameras monitoring public roads are not an invasion of privacy. Anyone, citizens or the government, can observe a person driving on the public roads. This isn't prying into a private space - we're not talking about setting up a camera in a person's driveway. The cameras are merely observing and recording an illegal activity that the perpetrator has already made public.
It all comes back to where each of us draw the line. If you feel that traffic cameras have crossed the technology line and the rest of law enforcement hasn't, I'm curious to know why. If you're arguing that this is a black and white issue then we'll simply have to agree to disagree because I feel that these cameras would be a fair and effective means of improving traffic safety.
1.) Anyone who can read a few words of English can pass a driving test. In the USA we put ALL types of people on the road together while requiring little or no training. Why train drivers to drive well and obey the law when it is such a good revenue producer?
Make driver training MANDATORY. Better drivers, less road kill, and fewer fines/fees/taxes.
2.) Better, clearer traffic laws: Slower traffic KEEP RIGHT. No passing on the right. Trucks restricted to right lane. 30MPH on ALL SUBURBAN roads. Traffic signals timed to improve the flow of traffic, not restrict it.
3.) Who makes the money on these "red light/speeding cameras"? The company that is contracted to provide them. Mont. County will be lucky to see 5% of the take.
Eric - "I also feel that it could go too far the other direction with virtually no monitoring at all."
I don't have a problem with no monitoring at all. Because it always goes too far. No mater the good intentions (road to hell and all that). And there is always a need for more no matter how much is already in place.
As for who makes the money... Sure, a private firm is usually involved and should make a marginal profit off their efforts - as any business can do. From there, it's up to the government agency to write a contract that's favorable to the government/people, not to the contractor. This is why we need good, transparent government - so we can make sure our driving safety is not sold out.
The "CRF" fees do not apply to garden-variety speeding, which is what a speed camera is supposed to enforce. They apply only to excessive speeding and to other dangerous offenses such as DUI, leaving the scene of a serious accident and manslaughter. I'm not sure how a speed camera is going to help solve those types of problems.
Bob
Further, how is it any different than a police officer with a radar gun? Each officer knows the posted speed limit and sets a point above it at which he/she will write a ticket. If you drive by faster than that point you'll get a ticket - just the same as a camera.
Plus, the cameras take discrimination out of the picture. Officers are probably tempted to act, or not act, based on external factors and emotions when they see a car go by. The cameras don't have prejudices or feelings and will only act when someone breaks the predefined rule. You can argue that an person's opinion is important in some cases - I agree. That's why you can challenge your photo ticket in court where a judge can make a human decision.
And tell me, how is it that you couldn't get two tickets in one day from two officers? Is there some unwritten rule that they won't write you two tickets in person? Quite the opposite I'd think - the second officer would probably yell at you for not getting the message to slow down the first time in the day.
And finally, I guess you didn't read or didn't understand, but if the vast majority of "regular" drivers respond by driving slower, the officers will be able to focus on the worst drivers. Meaning those really bad drivers will get caught more, pay higher prices (with or without the CRFs), and will either get the message or lose their licenses or even freedom.