http://www.examiner.com/x-9345-Baltimor ... ved-issues[quote="baltomore exminer"
Open letter to the Baltimore County Council on speed camera legislation
Councilmen:
I oppose Bill 61-09, allowing for speed cameras in Baltimore County, in its current form, and in any amended form. It is a Big Brother policy, an infringement upon the citizens’ right to a fair hearing, a revenue raiser, and an ineffective policy in terms of the stated goal of safety.
1) The bill is almost entirely without parameters, scope, or specifics. We all know what that means – it a Trojan Horse that will be rapidly expanded with no limits placed on that expansion or any later amendments to the legislation. It’s like a blank check issued to County Executive Jim Smith.
2) This bill is not about safety. It lowers the fines and eliminates the points that come with a speeding violation. Normally, fines in school zones would be higher than elsewhere as a deterrent, but instead they’ve been lowered which goes counter to safety goals. Because the offense has been reduced to the equivalent of a parking violation with no points assessed, the result is that driving records will no longer be reflective of a person’s driving, and licenses that should be revoked will not.
3) It is clear this is a fundraising tactic. The county executive and the county council is facing a reduction of revenue coming from the state next year. Fines have been lowered and points not assessed in order to make the bill less offensive to the public so it can be passed, and also to discourage citizens from taking their citations to court.
4) The legislation invites fraud and abuse. The contractor is receiving a 50% commission on the revenues from citations, despite the verbiage in the state law which says compensation for the contractor cannot be based upon the number of citations issued. There is built-in incentive for fraud and the method of compensation to the contractor violates the provisions of the state law.
5) Although proponents have described the bill as a “police force multiplier”, it is in fact a police force replacer. As the number of cameras is increased throughout the county, I would not be surprised by a real concern growing among the FOP and police officers as cameras replace traffic cops and eliminate jobs.
6) In Arizona, the only other state in the nation with speed cameras, anger among citizens and operators has caused multiple case of some who resort to destruction of property (speed camera equipment) and violence against police officers and speed camera protestors.
7) The contractor, ACS, was given preference in essentially a no bid process that was done as an expansion of the existing contract for red light cameras prior to the passing of speed camera legislation. There must be a fair bidding process in order to assure the best result for county taxpayers and remove the appearance of a preferential relationship between the county and ACS Inc.
8) There are no provisions for oversight in the legislation. The BCPD has no plan to audit the calibration and functioning of the equipment, except by public demand when complaints are placed about miscalibration. So there will be no oversight until after substantial fraud or negligence has already occurred. This is an invitation to fraud and falls outside of normal engineering practice. ANY piece of measuring equipment in manufacturing plants is required to be recalibrated at least once a year, using standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
9) The right to a fair hearing is compromised because the operator of the equipment is not required to appear in court. There is a presumption of guilt on the motorist.
10) Tickets are issued to the owner of the car, not the driver. And this fact cannot be successfully challenged in court because the state legislation stipulates that the car owner is liable regardless of who was driving.
11) The definition of school zone is being altered for purposes of this legislation if the half-mile radius from each school is used as the coverage area. The legislation does not define the coverage area. In more densely populated districts, that would encompass nearly the whole area.
12) The use of cameras instead of police officers means that the act of speeding will not be stopped while it is occurring. Drivers will be mailed the citation after the fact.
13) There is no language in the bill that would eliminate the possibility of a driver receiving multiple tickets for the same offense within a one mile drive from different cameras being placed within one school zone.
14) The cameras will operate weekdays from 6am to 8pm, long before and after kids are at school.
15) Opposition against speed cameras among the public in Baltimore County is strong. Baltimore County collected the most number of signatures in the state on a petition to bring the state bill to referendum, with over 4,000 signatures collected in six weeks. The council should vote to place a referendum on the 2010 ballot.
16) The need for the legislation has not been studied. There have been no studies to ascertain whether children have actually been struck by speeding vehicles in school zones. I have serious doubts that the need for cameras in school zones even exists, given that we already have crossing guards for that very purpose. The county plans on conducting a study to determine which roads should be covered by the cameras, but this is putting the cart before the horse. Before any legislation is passed, the need should be determined and justified.
In summary, the only urgency with regards to the passing of this legislation now is the need to produce revenue. Otherwise, the council should take time to resolve the issues, go through the correct bidding processes, and ultimately choose to solve any safety issues by increasing police presence where needed.
For more info: See more upcoming articles this week on speed camera legislation. Click "Subscribe" to get email updates when I post a new article.
[/quote]
Hang on.. they get fined but no penalty points? :scratchchin and the cams operate from 6 am to 8 pm around schools? (OK.. that's no problem .. it's 24/7 here...
)
Hmmm .. the car owner gets fined no matter who was driving?
All the same .. it seems the anti-speed cam campaign is a lot "hotter" over there.
We have been active on the message boards over there and linked back to here... It seems they "like our style and common sense values"
But have told us that their police are a lot better than UK plod.. .. errrr.. I think I'll pass on that as they carry g-g-guns there
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
