SITCIOT - Stick It to Click It or Ticket

Maryland’s Senator Roy Dyson (D) who serves district 29, had a rather succinct piece of commentary in his newsletter on the use of speed cameras masquerading as safety devices when the primary intent is produce revenue for the government. Below, we provide you with some of the highlights from the piece, you can click the link above for the full commentary.

The speed camera bill does not require the use of cameras for any county that does not want them. I don’t consider myself a cynical person, but the odds are that after a few years, legislation to require all counties use speed cameras will be before the General Assembly. To me, that is a troubling aspect of the bill. Certainly, we have seen similar legislative encroachment before. Remember the law to require that seat belts be worn. When the law was first enacted, failure to wear a seat belt was a secondary offense. Violators could be cited for failure to wear a seat belt, only if they were stopped for another moving violation. Today, failure to wear a seat belt is a primary offense. The law has been changed. Yes indeed, drivers can be stopped and cited for failure to wear a seat belt.

Speed cameras are popular because they are revenue producers…and the hunger for more revenue is a governmental addiction. In some form or another, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Washington and the District of Columbia use speed cameras. On the other hand, New Jersey, West Virginia and Wisconsin prohibit any type of photo-radar enforcement of traffic laws. Currently, Montgomery County, the only Maryland county that uses speed cameras, raked in $2.8 million in the first 6 months of their use. And that’s only one county in less than a year of camera use. It should be noted that Montgomery County law allows cameras only where the speed limit is 35 mph. Violators are fined $40, considerably less than the $75 fine under the proposed state legislation.

A United Kingdom Department of Transportation study showed that when conventional speed cameras were used in construction zones, there was a 55% increase in accidents. Then they were used in non-construction zones, there was a 31% accident increase. When speed-averaging cameras were used in construction zones, there was a 4.5% increase in accidents. When speed-averaging cameras were used in non-construction zones, there was a 6.7% in accidents. However, when police patrols were increased in construction zones, there was a 27% decrease in accidents. Increased police patrols in non-construction zones produced a 10% decrease in accidents. It should be noted that UK’s Transportation Department tried to suppress this information. It had to be obtained with a freedom of information request.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm and is filed under All Items, Citations, Maryland, United States. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.