Officials say cameras are all about safety
Sun photo/Barbara Haddock Taylor
The most common complaint about speed cameras -- besides the tired nonsense about Big Brother -- is that they're just a "money grab" by the government that will have no effect on safety.
Several high-ranking transportation and law enforcement officials in state government addressed that issue Wednesday at a news conference called to outline Maryland's plans to deploy the cameras in highway work zones.
Transportation Secretary Beverly Swaim-Staley (at podium), State Highway Administrator Neil J. Pedersen (the tall man on the right) and Maryland Transportation Authority Police Chief Marcus Brown (right center background) all vigorously argued that the camera program is all about safety.
Pedersen said he would be "absolutely delighted" if so few motorists violated the law that the fines couldn't cover the cost of the enforcement program. He said his agency will do all it can to make sure drivers are not surprised by a speed camera zone -- with oversize signs and electronic readers that tell motorists how fast they are going.
"It will be very difficult for a motorist not to realize a speed enforcement zone is ahead," he said.
Swaim-Staley said simply that she would be happy "if no one has to pay a fine because of this program."
Brown said the cameras will help officers with enforcement in work zones, where closed shoulders and altered traffic patterns can make it dangerous for officers to make a traffic stop.
"For law enforcement, this is not a money matter. The ultimate goal is to affect behavior," he said.
Speed camera foes are not likely to be persuaded. To them it's an article of faith that public officials couldn't possibly be interested in saving the lives of highway workers, motorists and passengers.
One person at the news conference who didn't share the opponents' cynicism was Lairie Moser, whose SHA employee husband was killed by a negligent driver on a highway ramp in Frederick County. She said Rick Moser was 57 when he was hit at 60 mph and thrown 175 feet through the air. His widow has since become an activist on work zone safety and testified before the General Aseembly in support of the law now taking effect.
Moser said criitics of the law might take a different view if they shared her experiences.
"If these people were living my llife they might place a different value on speed cameras," she said. "I would ask them to imagine telling a 10-year-old boy that he'll never see his father again."
Comments
So if speed cameras are really about helping ensure the safety of our children and those construction workers building and maintaining our roads can they explain why are the locations for so many Baltimore City cameras not located in closer proximity to schools.
For one example why is the closest camera to Poly & Western at Cold Spring & Roland?????? As a second what school is being protected at Gay & Lombard?
Posted by: Paul | September 30, 2009 7:07 PM
People don't like being conditioned away from a behavior any better than being sanctioned for it.
"Only social patterns can control biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." -RP
Posted by: MrRational | September 30, 2009 7:19 PM
If this was about safety, the the police and politicians would recognize that they are not qualified traffic engineers and they would hire engineering studies wherever there are safety problems. Instead, they jump straight to a revenue solution as soon as a slick-talking salesman visits their office. Clearly a money grab.
Posted by: PhotoRadarScam | September 30, 2009 7:49 PM
It's not a money grab if you don't speed. I don't see any reason to complain if you obey the law to a reasonable level. That includes not speeding by schools.
Posted by: Jed | September 30, 2009 8:32 PM
For those of you with the perspective of this being a money grab, what other form of punishment would you exact from a speed and safety violator? An ass-whupping? Incarceration? I think 40 bucks and no points is a fairly benign punishment.
Paul, you obviously need to be educated on the difference between a red-light camera and a speed camera. They accomplish two completely different things.
Mr. Rational, this one's for you:
"Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world."-IK
Posted by: MoreRational | October 1, 2009 9:23 AM
MoreRational: please educate me then. Becasue I honestly don't understand how the speed cameras at the locations I mentioned will help reduce speeds near any schools.
I'd argue that a camera on Falls Rd. between Cross Keys and Western High would be much more beneficial at reducing car speeds and increasing the safety of students than one blocks away at Roland and Cold Spring.
And Jed is right if you aren't speeding you have nothing to worry about. However we were sold these cameras as a way to increase safety for students (and highway workers) yet the locations in Baltimore City seem to not indicate that these groups will actually benefit from the cameras.
Posted by: Paul | October 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Paul, that is the second time you mentioned that Falls Road location. I suspect nimbyism.
That said... going back to the 60's that location has been a favorite location for a BPD radar trap; sometimes with many "chase" vehicles too.
I suspect that there are other forces at work in keeping that spot for the "old school" approach and is completely independent of the arguments and merits of current electronic alternatives.
Posted by: MrRational | October 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Lawmakers who voted for these things will need to face about a million ticket recipients in Nov 2010.
Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland!
Posted by: Joe | October 1, 2009 9:20 PM
I am totally opposed to all speed cameras. They are not accurate and they don't really do anything expecte raise revenue and force drivers to cocnstantly watch their speedometer rather than concentrate on the road ahead and what is going on around them. I found some interesting information on http://bit.ly/Y59uH that may be of use to readers if they get pinged. Actually you should read it BEFORE you get a ticket.
Posted by: Robert A Yeldon | October 2, 2009 1:02 AM
There is a strange paradox that emerges with “anti-camera” freaks regarding the use of speed enforcement cameras; they agree that they should be used near schools to protect students but they argue for civil liberties at road works where they appear not to regard the lives of road work crews and their fellow motorists. Are the lives of students more valuable that these other dear folk? I say not.
Although there seems to be a significant number of students being injured in traffic accidents nears schools it shouldn’t surprise anyone because that is where they concentrate between 0800 and 1600 You may be surprised to know that the average motorist takes great care when near a school for the very reason even “anti-camera” freaks advocate the use of cameras there; drivers take great care because they feel a greater duty of care and observe the speed limits there. It’s similar to driving on ice, a danger is perceived so greater care is taken.
Now we consider road works. Is there a greater degree of danger at those locations? Yes there is! The problem is that your civil libertarian with the ‘pedal-to-the-metal’ attitude and immunity from collision because of his/her heightened sense of how good a driver they are sees little danger. It isn’t the same for the road crews; collide with them at speeds in excess of 40mph because you miss a slight diversion in the road and you risk removing the father or mother from one of those precious students you take great care about.
Civil liberties and road sport don’t combine; here’s looking forward to a safe, injury free works period with no speeding tickets…but hey! If a few motorists end up with fines or loosing their licence they are free to do so, as long as they loose it before our precious students loose one of their parents.
Posted by: Norah Lewins | October 2, 2009 3:53 AM
Claire and her cronies at Safe Speed live in a parallel upside down World! Just why they continue to spread their dangerous obsession and encourage contempt for the law is very sad? If just one person reads Claire's ill informed spiel and as a result goes out and causes a speed related accident, then she will have blood on her hands.
Claire's posting is deliberately misleading. The latest figures show speed to be responsible for 24% of fatal accidents in the UK. Around half of these are through speed OVER the limit. Drivers who break the speed limit are much more likely to drive at inappropriate speeds within the limit. Drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have committed other road traffic offences. Crime surveys persistently show that speeding is a major concern in local areas. Speeding equals bad driving - drivers who cannot drive without speeding, do us all a favour - hand in your licence and get the bus.
Since cameras in the UK reached their peak in 2004, deaths on the road have nose-dived:
2005 - 3,508
2008 – 2,538
A fall of 970 in 3 years. These figures have not been disputed by anyone.
It is a shame that a loud and ill informed minority have been allowed to speak for the silent majority of drivers who do support cameras and would like to see more of them.
No one is listening to you – cameras are not going anywhere and we can all look forward to hundreds more average speed cameras in the near future (whoever wins the election, and whatever the Conservatives say in their press release on Tuesday).
The UK country now has the joint best road safety record together with Sweden.
Don't listen to Claire - if anyone disagrees with her on the site she runs they are banned. I think that alone speaks volumes - the truth often hurts.
Posted by: Samual | October 5, 2009 4:24 PM
I'm surprised you understand the word paradox when you don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose". Pretty pathetic. Can only imagine what you do with "To", "too", and "two". But what do I know? Since I am anti-camera, I am a freak.
Posted by: TAJ | October 5, 2009 4:28 PM