Council members hear pros, cons on speed cameras
Towson meeting brings out opponents and supporters
By Bryan P. Sears, bsears@patuxent.com
Posted 8/20/09
About 50 to 60 people showed up at the Baltimore County Public Library branch in Towson on Wednesday for what is likely to be the only public meeting on the issue outside of a Sept. 1 County Council meeting on a bill that will allow the use of the cameras. The crowd in attendance appeared to be split equally on the issue, though opponents signed up in larger numbers to speak or ask questions.
Del. Steve Lafferty, a Democrat who represents the 42nd District and a proponent of speed camera legislation, said constituents contacted him earlier this year and urged him to support the law.
“This bill is about protecting children and people who are crossing the street to schools,” Lafferty said.
“If you’re against this bill, quite candidly, you’re concerned less about children than you are making a statement,” Lafferty said.
Chief Jim Johnson told the audience that the number one concern he hears from communities is about traffic.
“Please slow people down,” Johnson said, recounting community meetings, letters and e-mails.
“I want to educate people,” Johnson said. “I want to change people’s driving behavior.”
There were 1,794 speed related traffic accidents within one-half mile of a public or private school from Jan. 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2007, Johnson said.
It is not clear how many of those accidents occurred between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. or how many accidents involved cars traveling faster than 12 miles per hour above the posted speed limit.
In 2007, a national study found that more speeding violations were issued in Baltimore County than any other type of violation, making up 20 percent of all traffic violations, Johnson said.
It is still not clear where the cameras will be stationed. Johnson said the county is involved in a statistical analysis of 214 sites that fall within one-half mile of school zones. The sites, once determined, will be listed publicly on a county Web Site.
“This (bill) is about using smart technology,” Johnson said, calling the cameras “a force multiplier.”
A law passed by the General Assembly earlier this year allows counties to use speed cameras in school zones and highway work zones beginning Oct. 1. The County Council is required to pass enabling legislation allowing the cameras to be used.
If approved, the cameras would be in operation between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The $40 ticket, which carries no points, would only be issued if a car is traveling exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 12 miles per hour.
The county law, if passed, requires the police department to issue warnings for the first 30 days after the first camera becomes operational.
Cynthia Weisz, who lives on Stevenson Road in Towson, acknowledged her own speeding tickets when she lived in Florida and St. Louis, but said she sees speeders every day on the roads near her home. She said a number of dogs and cats have been killed “by drivers who are not driving 25 miles per hour.”
“The bottom line is this is not a violation of your due process,” Weisz, a former prosecutor in Florida said. “You don’t like the ticket, you weren’t the one driving, you go and you challenge it and so sorry for your inconvenience.
“You don’t like the revenue generating? I’m so sorry. Don’t speed,” Weisz said.
Some opponents were passionate in their opposition. Many urged several councilmen who attended to withdraw the bill or vote against it.
“Maryland used to be known as the Free State,” said Tom Brauer, a White Marsh resident.
“This is turning into Maryland the police state and I don’t like it,” Brauer said, his voice rising. “I don’t like it one little bit.”
Brauer said he worried about expansion of the speed camera program.
“Once they get this they’re going to flesh it out with more things that they can get in there,” Brauer said.
Steve Bailey, a former county deputy state’s attorney, said Lafferty’s characterization of opponents of speed cameras is wrong.
“It’s the wrong way to start a meeting when you accuse everybody on the other side of not valuing their children’s safety,” said Bailey, who is now active with Americans for Prosperty-Maryland, a group that advocates for smaller government and opposes speed cameras. “We do. Every person in this room values their kids safety and their grandkids safety.”
Bailey said a provision in state law requires counties to turn over all fines once the total exceeds 10 percent of the jurisdictions budget is a clear indication that money, not public safety, is a driving factor.
“This is about money and you don’t have to look farther than the bill to figure that out,” Bailey said.
In order to reach the totals in Baltimore County that Bailey cited, the 6 to 12 fixed cameras county officials say would be installed would have to issue a total of nearly 4.3 million speeding tickets, earning more than $170 million in fines annually.
user comments (10)
user brucerobinson says...
The last paragraph is a bit of a cheap shot. yes, IF there are only 6 to 12 cameras it is a long way to $170 million. The 6 to 12 number is the stepping off point. That is the number that will teach them how to implement the cameras. I recently saw one of the Montgomery County citations. 10:00 PM at an intersection with a service road. It also had an ironic sign - Welcome to Bowie. Flash. It won't take long, I am afraid, for a dozen to become a gross. Baltimore County has been writing a lot of far more expensive speeding tickets for many years. That hasn't changed driver behaviors enough to satisfy. many people know where the tickets are written and avoid the pain. It is more likely that just as there is a prediction that people will establish a defacto speed limit where the signs say the limit is 25 but tickets don't start until 37 police officers will redirect their activities from school zone speeding tickets and fewer tickets will be the overall result. They'll let the cameras do the work just as the numbers for Chief Johnson have reflected in regard to Red Light Cameras. More cameras = fewer tickets. But not fewer fatalities. As an aside, there were eighteen speakers, not including elected officials, split 6 in favor of the cameras and twelve opposed. Three delegates spoke against the cameras and one spoke in favor. The three councilman present didn't take positions, but I might have missed a comment from Chairman Bartenfelder. The only other measure of the sense of the room would be in the applause each speaker received. It was fairly even in numbers and enthusiasm, but I saw many folks applauding both sides, so it is too hard to conclusively rely on that. Overall, it was a good meeting. People were respectful, some passionate, but all were polite. Chairman Bartenfelder maintained a pleasant, informed, controlled meeting attended by people wanting to learn and to be heard.
Posted 10:26 PM, 08.20.09
user jtmerryman says...
Stop speeding. No problem. I spent several years as an elementary school safety chairperson and have been on a county student walking routes committee, and I can tell you for a fact, no short-term policing and ticketing in school zones will ever make a difference. The only options are permanent ones -- so that's either traffic calming (speed humps, lane narrowing, etc.) and/or speed cameras. The public gets what it deserves. As it is now, they speed. This will fix the problem in school zones and will not turn into a perennial revenue generator. People will learn and the number of tickets will drop off. Worst case scenario -- if my tax contribution to the county doesn't need to increase as often because there's a revenue flow coming in from law breakers, how can I not be in favor of that? Wish I could have been there.
Posted 2:28 AM, 08.21.09
user jtmerryman says...
And we all can acknowledge that people who are against something almost always come out in larger numbers at these types of events, so the relative numbers of such a small sampling of the County population are not very meaningful. One could have just as easily twisted the facts like this: "Only 12 people out there are opposed? That's not very many."
Posted 2:38 AM, 08.21.09
user says...
I attended the speed camera meeting at the Towson Library on Wednesday night and would agree that it was a productive meeting that was conducted in a respectful manner. I encourage all to consider what this bill authorizes not simply what the County "intends" to do this year. The County plans to roll out the program starting with 6 -12 cameras, but the legislation authorizes an unlimited number of cameras on roads within 1/2 mile of any school in the county. There are more than 170 public schools in Baltimore County and many other private and parochial schools. In fact, the spokesperson who attended the hearing, admitted that the County Executive favors and supported legislation that would permit speed cameras outside of school zones. It is not difficult to image pressure from local PTAs (why protect only 6-12 school zones, what about my kids) and declining tax revenue resulting in hundreds of cameras being installed. The debate should not be limited to speed cameras or nothing. There are other solutions including traffic calming devices. Legislation authorizing the police department to share the revenue generated by police officers issuing tickets in school zones makes much more sense. Police officers can issue tickets to the offending driver immediately, cameras punish the registered owner (not driver) weeks later. Police officers can arrest speeders who are also drunk or drugged or have a suspended/revoked license, or who carry drugs or guns in their cars. Finally, funding a greater police presence around schools would actually help us promote drug and violence free school zones. Let's urge the county council to scrap this flawed legislation and require the general assembly to pass a law that will actually promote safety.
Posted 7:34 AM, 08.21.09
user photoradarscam says...
They did their bes to conceal the biggest flaws with the program. 80% of all accidents occur BELOW the posted limit (PSL). The driver is the registered owner only 72% of the time. They have done NO ENGINEERING STUDIES to show that speed enforcement is necessary to improve safety, or is even the best option. They cited accidents but they didn't cite injuries and fatalities, which is the true measure of safety. If you want to improve safety, HIRE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS. There could be a high number of violations simply because the signage is inadequate! Or perhaps the speed limits are too low! Or any other number of reasons. You don't know until you STUDY THE LOCATIONS, which they haven't even identified. If you take a scientific approach, you don't find the solution and then find a problem to attach it to. How convenient, the "solution" involves raking in tons of dough, but you can't tell us which locations are suffering from rogue drivers who are intentionally driving unsafe. They ignore the fact that many studies show that speed cameras actually INCREASE accidents. In Pinal County, AZ, the sheriff there removed cameras after fatalities DOUBLED at camera locations. Don't suppose they mentioned that one. Did they mention the error rate of the machines? How reliable are they? Guess what, we don't know because the vendors won't say. But we do know that the wrong person is cited 28% of the time, and that several drivers are automatically exempt from enforcement.... just put a large trailer hitch on your bumper that blocks the plate if you have a truck, or tow a trailer, or let it get a little dirty, or any number of ways that legally block the view of your plate or any of the other ideas at photoradarscam.com/avoid.php Finally, they have yet to show how these are effective. Do you have kids? Next time they do something wrong, try punishing them a week later and see how effective that is. Nothing but a cash grab.
Posted 8:52 AM, 08.21.09
user jtmerryman says...
Pinal County AZ: "The sheriff said he couldn't be certain that speed cameras were to blame for the crashes, but he believes they were a factor." This from a guy who eliminated them the day he took office because he's "against photo speed enforcement completely." When he talks about it failing miserably, it's only failed in terms of being a money generator. The county netted a whopping $12,000. And doubling fatalities at one place -- from three to six, is hardly a "study". These are mobile van based speed cameras and were used on highways, not school zones. The speeds involved were likely upwards of 70, 80, and 90 mph. I've driven through Apache Junction several times and have seen it first hand. And here's the punch line -- the sheriff wants to bring red-light cameras to Pinal County. So does that change your opinion about his judgment in general? Anyone can weasel around facts to support their gut feeling about something. In school zones there needs to be a zero tolerance for speeding, because a pedestrian can't get his or her bumper or taillight replaced when another car slams into it. There are many studies to tell you at what speed a pedestrian-auto incident is likely to be survivable by the pedestrian. Even 37 mph is being pretty generous in a 25 mph zone. That's 50% over the speed limit. The error rate, however small it may be, is accounted for by the 12mph break people are being given. So it says you were doing 41 and you were actually doing 40. Guess what? You were speeding when you hit 26.
Posted 4:29 PM, 08.21.09
user nlowman says...
No supporting traffic traffic studies submitted, the potential for an unlimited number of units to be installed, the police cheif acknowledging that he will reassign cops away from schools and if I am against it I hate my kids.... yea... sounds like sound public policy base on careful analysis...NOT!
Posted 7:46 PM, 08.21.09
user nlowman says...
Meet fire with fire ... or technology with technology http://www.phantomplate.com/
Posted 8:25 PM, 08.21.09
user jtmerryman says...
Heck, why stop there? Why not wear a wig, fake mustache, and a cape every day? They'll never catch you! When people start off trying to make a sound and logical argument, then resort to tossing out ideas on how to break the law and get away with it, the credibility just went down the toilet. The only reason to ask for street- and school-specific local studies at this point is to delay, delay, delay in the hopes that a few items of bad publicity will surface, be blown out of proportion, and kill the whole thing. There are lots of studies. Here's the abstract from Montgomery County's study -- details available via a Google search. "Speeding is a major factor in motor vehicle crashes, and almost one-quarter of speeding-related fatalities occur on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. In 2007, Montgomery County implemented the state of Maryland’s first automated speed enforcement program, with camera use limited to residential streets with speeds limits of 35 mph or less and school zones. Vehicle speeds were measured approximately 6 months before and 6 months after speed cameras were deployed, and signs were installed warning of the speed enforcement program. Relative to comparison sites in Virginia, the proportion of drivers traveling more than 10 mph above posted speed limits declined by about 70 percent at Montgomery County locations with both warning signs and speed camera enforcement, 39 percent at locations with warning signs but no speed cameras, and 16 percent on residential streets with neither warning signs nor speed cameras. Public opinion surveys found 74 percent of Montgomery County drivers thought speeding on residential streets was a problem. Six months after enforcement began, 60 percent of drivers were aware of the camera program and 62 percent supported it."
Posted 7:15 AM, 08.22.09
user davidmarks1 says...
If our leaders are truly concerned about the public health of our schoolchildren, why have they been less than aggressive in demanding that all our public schools be air conditioned? Half the county's public schools lack air conditioning. Others are so overcrowded that children must walk to outside trailers in the snow and rain.
Posted 6:38 AM, 08.24.09
Advertisement
most popular
- read
- emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement