We know that speeding tickets have little to do with safety. They are huge income generators for states and local cities.
Quote 0 0
D.C. Transportation Director: Continuing Camera Ticketing During Pandemic Reduces Accidents so Hospitals Can ‘Focus’ on Coronavirus

D.C. $till $ending Citizens Traffic Camera Tickets!…

…City $ays They’re Protecting Hospitals…

…$peeding Violations — Increasing!

Quote 0 0

Red-light cameras undermine rule of law

Speed and red-light cameras are the bane of many motorists. A modern idea made possible by technology, they have been installed in at least 24 states. Although these cameras are a revenue boon for governments across the nation, their intrusion into daily life is disturbing, and their constitutionality is dubious.

Specifically, use of these cameras could violate the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. Since it is a camera and not a person that witnessed the offense, such violations generally cannot be considered a criminal offense. The ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, not to the person driving it, leaving a lack of certainty as to the identity of the offender.

Therefore, the “ticket” in most places is nothing more than a civil fine, making enforcement and collection difficult. To date, governments have avoided this problem by requiring payment of the fine before motorists can renew their driver’s license or auto registration. Although there generally are appeals procedures, they typically do not give drivers a day in court. In other words, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty?

There are several for-profit companies that install and operate the cameras, some of them foreign-owned. In a typical arrangement, a camera company will contract with a local government to pay the capital cost of installing the cameras in exchange for a share of the revenue generated via fines. In short, governments get a new revenue stream without any operating cost, and the camera companies make a tidy profit.

The companies and government officials argue that greater safety will result from fewer accidents and that the increased government revenue will benefit the local communities.

Studies to confirm those claims have yielded mixed results. Studies paid for by the camera companies or governments usually show fewer accidents. Independent studies and those financed by opponents usually show no gains and sometimes worse results.

There is more evidence that greater public safety actually depends on the timing of yellow and red lights. Longer yellow and all-way red times have been shown to significantly reduce accidents. Sometimes local governments actually decrease yellow-light timing to catch more red-light runners, a result of the perverse financial incentives that tempt government officials and camera companies. Studies also show motorists are more likely to hit the brakes hard at camera-enforced intersections, increasing rear-end collisions.

Unsurprisingly, these cameras are deeply unpopular. Since 1991, there have been 42 elections on adopting or prohibiting either speed or red-light cameras or both. In all but two of these, voters have opposed the cameras by an average margin of 63 percent.

However, polling on the issue can show different results. A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll of 800 likely voters nationwide found 69 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat support red-light cameras, while 29 percent somewhat or strongly oppose. Interestingly, 47 percent of those same respondents thought most of their neighbors opposed the cameras.

A possible explanation is that, as a national poll, most respondents do not live in a locality with red-light cameras since less than half the states allow them and not all jurisdictions in those states have them. Therefore, many have never experienced them. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Most citations for speed and red-light cameras are simply civil fines. The offender essentially has no recourse in court. The financial incentive creates a conflict of interest for local elected officials and camera companies to game the system in their favor. These factors can undermine citizens’ faith in government and breed mistrust.

We are brought up to respect the legal system that was handed down to us through English common law. We expect the laws to be just and fairly applied. We expect to always have recourse in the courts. And most importantly, we always expect to be treated equally before the law. Speed and red-light cameras are contrary to those expectations. This is not good for the civil society, especially at a time when distrust in government is high.

Joe Barnett is managing editor of Budget & Tax News, which is published by The Heartland Institute.

Quote 0 0
Speed Cameras 'Mechanism for Generating Revenue,' Opponent Says

Baltimore County's, MD speed camera program is nothing but a government money 
grab and its record of improving safety is questionable, according to Joe
Seehusen, co-chairman of the county chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Americans for Prosperity, a group that advocates for smaller government, opposed
speed cameras in the county when they were first proposed in 2009.

Tom Quirk, a Democratic councilman who represents the 1st District including
Arbutus and Catonsville, said he will introduce a bill Jan. 3 allowing the
county to install more speed cameras around the county.

"We took a pretty strong stand, " Seehusen said. "We thought it was simply a
mechanism for generating revenue for the county. That feeling has not changed."

It is not immediately known how much money has been generated by the cameras,
which issue $40 citations to motorists driving more than 12 mph over the posted
speed limit in 15 designated school zones around the county.

The council approved the program in Sept. 2009. At the time, the county expected
to spend $2.2 million on the program. The cameras were expected to raise $1.1
million in the first 5 months after all the cameras became operational.

Earlier this month, Police Chief Jim Johnson said speed camera citations are
down 50 percent since the beginning of the program.

"We've shown that it was designed to improve safety in and around our school
zones," Johnson told the County Council during his confirmation hearing on Dec.

But Seehusen said he's not convinced the program improves safety.

"You really have to be able to empirically prove that it makes a
community more walkable or bike-able otherwise it's just words," Seehusen said.
"There's no evidence (the cameras) are doing any good for the community."

Seehusen said he and his group continue to advocate for increasing police
presence in school zones where speeding is an issue.

At PhantomALERT, we work day and night to make sure you do not get tickets from
speed traps or photo enforcement cameras. Our program is so effective over
100,000 drivers are using it and 9 out of 10 Police department admit it is
effective. We urge you to give PhantomALERT Gift Cards to everyone who owns a
GPS and hates getting traffic tickets

As of today we have over 500,000 verified POI - speed trap, red light camera,
speed camera, school zone, DUI check point, dangerous intersections, rail road

crossings and more.

Quote 0 0
Tickets and other traffic fines are just another tax. The sooner we understand this, the quicker we see the truth behind these cameras and speed traps. Safety has little to do with it.
Quote 0 0

A Supreme Court ruling last year requiring that scientists be made available to testify in court cases about lab evidence they prepare may have the added effect of curtailing the use of automated traffic-enforcement cameras to assess criminal penalties.

Two California judges this month tossed out batches of red-light camera tickets, citing a 5-4 decision by the high court in a Massachusetts case.

California is one of 23 states and the District of Columbia that operate red-light camera programs, but in 21 of those jurisdictions — including Maryland, Virginia and the District — violations generated by the cameras are civil infractions, like a parking ticket, issued to the vehicle's owner instead of criminal violations levied against the driver.

The California judges, ruling in separate cases in San Diego and Orange counties, said companies that operate cameras need to make available to testify the technicians who maintain their equipment in the same way that forensic scientists and lab workers can be called by defense attorneys for cross examination.


"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." --Abraham Lincoln
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

Abraham Lincoln
Quote 0 0