Red Light and Speed Cameras

Remove all ads!

As of Oct 1, Maryland approved the use of red light cameras and speeding cameras for use throughout the state, and they aren't wasting any time getting the devices everywhere. Basically, if you run a red light, or are speeding past a camera, you get a picture taken from a roadside camera, and you get a ticket in the mail.

Now, I don't care much about the red light cameras. I'm not speeding on busy streets with lights anyway, and so stopping in time for a yellow changing to red is no big deal.

I'm not nearly as thrilled with the speed cameras recently installed on the beltway. Given that I have a 40 mile drive to and from work every day, this has to possibility of significantly adding to my commute time. I guess I think that it's just not very sporting to get caught by an ever-vigilant camera. It's not like I have a history of speeding tickets - I have received exactly two in my 20 or so years of being a licensed driver. But the other times I have been caught, the cop got me fair and square.

While I understand that speeding is not a right, I would guess that 75% or more of the beltway drivers exceed the speed limit - well at least they did before now. I just think that this is a money-making scheme for the state, as Maryland - like many other states - is short on funds. Which brings me to my next problem. Maryland hired contractors to install and monitor the cameras, and the contractor gets a $17 "finders fee" for every ticket that gets sent out. Maryland is also paying $8 million annually for the contractor to do the work. When you look at what they are paying, and then add on the finders fee, it is expected that the state will only collect about 40% of the fine money that each ticket brings in. So we aren't even maximizing the effectivenes of this money-making scheme.

Anyway, I guess I'm just disgruntled and need to vent. /end rant.

Are these things common everywhere else?

 

Illinois agreed to not use the speed cameras when adding I-Pass to the highways. I know New Jersey used them to give tickets, as I was a recipient of one a few years ago when still living out east.

 

We have them in Alberta. Cash cow, but whatever. I just don't speed. Easy solution.

 

Yeah, I think red light cameras are more common as well. I don't know who approved the finder's fee, but presumably it was whoever negotiated the contract - governor's office perhaps? Maybe the MD legislature?

I just did a bit more research. Evidently, the projections are about 750,000 tickets per year, which will result in another $12 million for the contractor in finders fees. And there's another $3 million worth of "administrative costs" to the state for the program (strange considering the contractor is running the system).

Even after all this, the state expects to make a net of $19 million. But when you add up the total cost of ticket revenue, that means they are expecting 8 + 12 + 3 + 19 = $42 million.

 

I speed often enough, but not just to speed. I always have my car under control and I'm intelligent enough to know when I can safely do so. Like on a highway, but not in a a school zone. Highway speed limits baffle me though, as they can vary from 55 to 75. They are all open roads, why a 55 speed limit?

 

I love the idea of red-light cameras, but not so much the speeding cameras. That's only because I usually speed a bit (more on that later), though. The government has every right to do so if they choose. "Sporting" has nothing to do with it. "Fair" is that they have the right to set the speed limit and to expect you to obey it, nothing more. I know the feelings you have, I have them too at the thought of this, but they're nothing more than the fact that you'e gotten used to the idea of "bending" the law (really, breaking, but only within 'reasonable' limits). As for the contract, I'll bet it was poorly negotiated, as usual for government contracts, possibly even handed out as a favor to someone, but you're stuck with it. I really don't like the idea of a 'finder's fee', though. It just begs to be abused.

In one of my engineering courses in college, they actually went through the civil engineering process of designing a road, including recommending a speed limit to the legislature (usually these are accepted without comment, as they already take into account legislative guidelines). The reasoning for the speed limits depend on a lot of things, like estimated traffic, road quality, risks of going off the road, how straight the road is, etc. They also take into account a certain amount of 'worst case' scenario, as any good engineering does. In essense, the speed limit isn't designed so much around the sedan driving down the road on a bright, sunny afternoon as it is a Mac truck driving down the road while raining at close to midnight. In most driving conditions, the traffic speed is a better guage of a safe speed than the speed limit. In light of that, I usually speed by around 5 mph, more on highways depending on the situation (rain, traffic, lighting, etc).

 

I already conceded that point when I said, "I understand that speeding is not a right"

Anyway, the more I think about this, the more it ticks me off. After me calculations and seeing that it would bring in $19 million in net revenue for the state, it occurred to me that this is a rather small amount. I don't know what the state budget is for Maryland, but it has to be several BILLION dollars. $19 million is chump change.

 

We have them here in Winnipeg. Red light cameras also serve as speed trap cameras.

We also have mobile radar units for road construction zones, the idea being to slow down traffic when construction workers are present, or where the construction itself poses a safety hazard for traffic. I have no problem with this, but until a recent court challenge (which the city lost), these were also being used in construction zones where no workers were present and the zones themselves were safe. Pure money grab.

 

It's all well and good to grumble about speed limits being set for sub-optimal traffic conditions and that a little speeding doesn't hurt anybody when you know what you're doing. Thing is, most people are morons. If you let people use their disgression, so to speak, on how fast they drive, you get a lot more accidents. Statistically speaking. It might not be you. Yes, you. You reading this right now. I'm sure you're a fantastic driver. I'm sure it would be OK if YOU sped a little here and there. It's those OTHER drivers I'm talking about.

The limits are there for a reason. Too many morons out there.

As for the money angle, well...a greater chance of getting a ticket might lead to less speeding, which probably leads to fewer accidents.

 

Here's an example of an odd speed limit. I just traveled to Philadelphia from Chicago last week. While on route 80 in Indiana the speed limit changes from 70 to 55. That is odd. The road didn't change, same highway, no crazy bends, no traffic. The change does not come in a high traffic area. I'm confused as why they make the drastic change at that point, other than to use the changing point as a speed trap. There was several state troopers using radar aroung the changing point. That's pretty *****y of them. 1st time drivers on that road enter a trap when that happens. For regulars, no biggie, your aware of it, but I would bet that most of the tickets written around there are 1st time or very rare travelers of that stretch of road..

 

Dont come to the UK and drive whatever you do.

oh and... if people werent breaking the law they wouldnt be bothered by them

 

Exactly. I don't get what is so difficult about sticking to the limits. (Apart from the kind of situations like what Blades just described there, which is just plain weird and should be looked into, if one had any confidence in the grinding wheels of bureacracy.)

Let's say all (or most) speed limits were raised by 5 mph. Does anybody believe people would adhere to those new limits rather than just speeding the usual 5-10 mph on top of those too?

 

If speeding tickets had anything to do with public safety I'd agree with you. But they're never located on windy back roads or accident black spots. They're always located on the safest roads where traffic volumes are high but accident rates are low. Roads which have a bizarrely low limit are a favourite. I'm far more cautious about sticking to the limit on a good road than a bad one. Logical behaviour according to our law enforcers.

 

Utah needs red light camera A.S.A.P.!!! If they were to put them at the intersections of the highway I use every day to get to work, Utah would never have a budget deficit again! On average 8-10 cars run the red light coming off the highway every time I drive it...my light will be green for several seconds, but they just keep coming!

I like to be first in the pack so I can get into the intersection, blast my horn, flash my lights, and flip them all off!

 

Ah, an old favourite - the speed limits!

Here in Sweden they're once again thinking about LOWERING the already low speed limits on the major highways. The only positive thing about it this time that they are actually using a somewhat sound argument for it: A small reduction in speed translates into rather sizeable reduction in fuel consumption and thus lower CO2 emission.

All the fine talk about traffic safety as (one of) the basis of deciding the speed limit is, bluntly put, BS as long as there are smaller roads that have speed limits that ACTUALLY require at least half-awake driver, in at least half-decent car putting at least half-arsed effort in driving to meet, much less exceed. Given the amount of worst-case minimums listed there would actually vouch for 150++ km/h limits in the major roads, but no -- 90 or even 80 it is for the most part.

 

Huh? You've only JUST got speed cameras? Really?? We've had them for decades.

I can't believe you haven't had them until now. I thought USA was usually much more advanced than NZ on stuff.

I think speed cameras are great. The faster you go, the bigger the mess.

 

We've had the technology for a long time, but some idiots kept protesting about it 'invading their privacy' (what privacy, you're on the open road) so it kept being put off.

 

The whole thing about automated police is nothing more than a hidden tax. It always was that an officer would enforce the law according to a given situation. If someone was speeding or driving recklessly they were given a ticket; if someone was going over the speed limit and not being reckless, they usaually just gave a warning, because the speed limits are pretty vague in the first place anyway.

This business of having cameras is just another proof that citizens are just another source of revenue for the state. And rather than just raise taxes, now they can just lower speed limits to get more money from the average citizen. In fact these tickets don't go against your record, since they can't say who is actually driving the car. The camera just sees the car and the plate number = $$$$$$, and not catching a particular person who is breaking the law - it's just the tag number. So my wife could be driving my car, but if it's in my name they will send me a bill. Anyone who believes that this about the law is a sap.

Here's more on this usavory and unconstitutional legalized theft of the average citizen:

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/09/co...at---last-month-one-of-the-nations.html#posts

 

Crybabies. We have those in Holland for years. It helps, it really does, and death rates keep dropping. A lot of traffic lights are guarded that way at the more complicated spots, combined with speed traps. Not only do we use fixed ones, mobile speedtraps are set up at different places, and camera cars drive around.