Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Some states see the light before others, but they will all come to the same conclusion in the end I think. from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2796.asp Maine Bans Photo Enforcement Maine governor signs into law a total ban on red light cameras and speed cameras. Maine last week became the fourteenth state to ban the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Governor John Baldacci (D) signed into law a bill introduced by Representative Richard Cebra (R-Naples) that prohibits the use of a "traffic surveillance camera to prove or enforce a violation" of traffic laws. Cebra's measure sailed through the legislative process with almost no opposition at any stage of the process. "While on the surface these cameras may appear to increase public safety, recent studies have shown that they actually increase the occurrences of accidents at intersections where the public is aware that there is a camera," Cebra said in a statement. "The placement of these cameras is also a civil rights issue, creating the issuing of a summons and possible fines and jail time to the owner of a vehicle and not necessarily the actual driver of the vehicle. In many places around the country, these cameras have become nothing more than a money-maker for municipalities." The issue of automated enforcement was first raised in March by state Representative Donald Pilon (D-Saco) who wanted to give municipalities the right to install red light cameras throughout Maine. His idea backfired. When Pilon's bill came before the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, not one member voted in favor of the proposal. Cebra followed up with his prohibition measure which was greeted with unanimous committee approval in April. It cleared the full state Senate under a suspended rules procedure used for non-controversial measures, but an amendment was added in the House to allow the use of toll road cameras. Thus modified, the legislation cleared both chambers on May 21 with overwhelming support. The law formally takes effect ninety days after the legislature adjourns, which would be September 15 according to the latest schedule. Earlier this year, Mississippi and Montana enacted photo enforcement bans. View the full list of states that ban traffic cameras. Article Excerpt: LD 1234 An Act To Regulate the Use of Traffic Surveillance Cameras Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: Sec. 1. 29-A MRSA Section 2117 is enacted to read: Section 2117. Use of traffic surveillance cameras restricted The State or a municipality may not use a traffic surveillance camera to prove or enforce a violation of this Title. For purposes of this section, "traffic surveillance camera" means a device that, in conjunction with a lighted traffic-control device or a lane direction control device, as described in section 2057, subsections 1 and 3, or a speed measurement device as described in section 2075, subsection 4, automatically produces one or more photographs, one or more microphotographs, a videotape or any other recorded image of a vehicle at the time the vehicle is operated in violation of state law. This section does not apply to a photo-monitoring system, as defined by Title 23, section 1980, subsection 2-A, paragraph B, subparagraph 4, used by the Maine Turnpike Authority for toll enforcement purposes. Effective 90 days following adjournment of the 124th Legislature, First Regular Session, unless otherwise indicated. |
|
|
"Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way? We take a look. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law on May 19 Senate Bill 277, allowing the use of speed cameras in highway work zones and within a half-mile radius of schools, which means that they can be placed on freeways under these conditions." Speed cameras on U.S. highways? (CNN) |
|
|
.... does having a speed camera on a restricted access interstate unlucky enough to be within half a mile radius of a school help with safety of the kids on their way to and from school? Just more evidence that it is about the money grab hiding behind an argument for safety that only the gullible could believe in, methinks. 
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 4:16 am) Poorly written part in link article post 1719. Restricted access highways and school area are distinct. Don't know how anyone could criticize using speed cameras in school zones or construction zones on highways. Too many highway workers get killed or injured by drivers that go way over the construction zone speed limit. It would be extremely expensive to post adequate number of police at all construction zones while workers are present. Speed cameras are a cost effective way to "control" dangerous speeding drivers in these zones.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 6:17 am) Safety costs money, including posting officers wherever needed, simple as that. One cannot use the old "it costs too much for proper law enforcement" argument as an excuse for taking short cuts with civil liberties. Further, please keep in mind that about half of worker fatalities and injuries in work zones are caused by construction accidents, NOT drivers exceeding the speed limit. For an example reference, please see: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-128/ which states that: "Highway and street construction workers are at risk of fatal and serious nonfatal injury when working in the vicinity of passing motorists, construction vehicles, and equipment. Each year, more than 100 workers are killed and over 20,000 are injured in the highway and street construction industry. Vehicles and equipment operating in and around the work zone are involved in over half of the worker fatalities in this industry. Historically, efforts to reduce vehicle-related worker injuries in this industry have focused on improving traffic control devices and work zone configurations to minimize confusion of motorists passing through the work zone and to limit collisions involving motorists. The premise has been that by minimizing traffic collisions in work zones, worker injuries are minimized. However, fatality data indicate that workers being struck by a motorist passing through the work zone account for only half the vehicle-related fatalities among highway workers." My only concern here with reference to the posted story is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of the law be damned. Phrases like "don't know how anyone could criticize" only serve to degrade intelligent discussion and are best avoided, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Exactly right. It's being used politically since the last election and even today in articles I was reading. All it takes is a police car doing duty in a construction area. People traveling on highways from out-of-town follow the speeds of the locals. When there never are policemen in the construction areas the locals go wild. While trying to justify mailing bills or tickets to people from out-of-town for driving as do most people when traveling sounds caring, the real goal would be money-making. If they only bill local drivers that would be okay--if we're wanting to play the PC game. > is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of Many bills federal have been written with the intent of different interpretation in the future and are being interpreted differently than presented to congress originally. ADA laws, e.g., fit that bill (no pun intended). The goal of the camera companies is to get their billing abilities into each category and expand them giving pittances to the local politicians hungry for money to spend to buy votes. That's what it is. The camera companies are doing what retired policemen and detectives did for a good while. They are pseudo police agencies similar to the businesses of retired policemen which supplied undercover agents to try to induce high school students to sell them drugs. In most cases the kids wouldn't have solicited selling drugs but the agents used entrapment heavily so they could make their arrests and justify their bills to the local police or prosecutors. Camera companies are the same ilk of criminal in blue. Just put police cars out there and they will do wonders. |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Nothing wrong in using technology to help enforce laws when manpower is inadequate to continuously monitor drivers while workers active in construction zones. While there have apparently been abuses of the photo camera system, that does not mean that it should be banned. Weed out the abuses. It is up to legislatures and dots to sort out and improve the management and operation of speed camera systems wherever used. Photo camera system has been used for years on the Illinois Tollway system to document and fine toll payment violators.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 05, 2009 6:58 am) However, technology is a double edged sword. What is wrong with photo radar is the potential for abuse that has been realised time and again and mentality of helping to "control drivers" and "continuously monitor drivers" without regard to due process and civil liberty concerns. This technology is the first step to many dangerous consequences for our society and must be stopped, in my opinion. We can agree to disagree about this for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 6:40 am) Poor management of construction sites, poorly laid out detours and signage, and a lack of adherence to standards cause most of the injuries and fatalities, for the worker as well as the drivers. There is plenty of data/research/info on how to properly do it, the industry just isn't motivated. |
|
|
Replying to: vcheng (Jun 05, 2009 7:34 am) about "Potential abuse". OK, so we just give up on any use of the technology? If we can land a man on the moon, can we just possibly figure out methods to manage photo radar to reduce abuse to an acceptable minimum? Could we put the police agencies in total control of the system and minimize camera vendors' involvement? Should Illinois Tollway eliminate their 24/7 camera system for catching toll violators and instead raise tolls to pay for and put in occasional manned police monitoring? Or, alternatively, go backwards and put in manned toll collection at all toll stations?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
