I do not want to defend speeders. I drive plus-5 most of the time and don't worry about speed cameras. However, differences in speed on the road lead to problems. A commenter a few days ago said to let traffic run at the design speed of the road. I cannot absolutely support that idea, but judicious raising of the limit on the Beltway would probably result in much less difference between the slower speeds and the higher ones. I can point to I-195: it opened at 55 and was a nightmare; upped to 60 and became fairly calm and easy.
And maintain your speen when going up a gradient - helps maintain the flow.

I think a disclosure IS in order Michael: do you *ever* exceed the legally posted speed limit? You demonstrate an utter contempt for the legal rights of drivers in your every posting about speed cameras, and seem to think speeding is such a horrific crime that anyone who gets a speed camera ticket is no longer entitled to say anything about the cameras. And of course, that every single person who gets a speed camera ticket is in fact guilty. So if you do sometimes exceed the speed limit, I assume you immediately pay the local authorities $40 for each and every offense, since that is basically what you have advocated.

I have never gotten a speed camera ticket, (whether you believe it or not it is true) but you probably think I still shouldn't be criticizing them. But the fact that there ARE people criticizing them and threatening to take the government's new toys away is the only reason anyone can drive anywhere with a modest degree of confidence that we will not get tickets for offenses we are not guilty of. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a LOT of corruption in Maryland, and speed cameras are already in the hands of some corrupt local officials who are not worthy of trust. Your readers should be thankful that there are some journalists who will be more critical and not just spit back the government's press releases.

COMMENT: Full disclosure? Sure. Do I always adhere precisely to the posted limit? No. Do I attempt to stay in the ballpark? Yes. Rather than fight the flow of traffic, I will fall in with it because that is safer.

However, the margin by which one has to exceed the speed limit to receive a speed camera ticket in Maryland is 12 mph. I think the legislature chose well because that's about the threshold applied by police officers. It's also a level that is simply too fast.

I don't come to this 100 percent pure. I have received a handful of speeding tickets in 40 years -- the last about 10 years ago. I never received a ticket when I didn't deserve one. I hope I have since learned to moderate my speed. Since being assigned to cover transportation, I have become more aware of highway safety and the role speed plays in fatalities. Officially, it's about one in three; unofficially, it's probably higher because in many cases there is no living witness to a crash.

Nobody's First Amendment rights are at stake here. I'm not questioning Ms. Dvorak's right to believe what she believes or write what she writes. I do question her judgment and the Post's for not making a full disclosure of where she is coming from on this. I also find it rather puzzling that a respected paper would publish a column that so openly applauds criminal actions. It's not a question of First Amendment rights but of editorial standards. The Sun's editors can spike my columns at any time and I wouldn't have a free-speech case.

I accept your word that you have never received a speed camera ticket and that your objections are purely philosophical and not tainted by self-interest. And you defend your position quite well. But I do not regard the highways as a zone of privacy. They are a public place and we are accountable for how we conduct ourselves there. To me, safety trumps any other consideration because I don't see any fundamental freedoms at stake here. There is no right to speed. There is no right to get away with it. If I ever get ticketed, I would expect to pay up, inform my readers and refrain from whining about the injustice of it all.

As for your charges of corruption, I'd suggest you furnish evidence (error itself is not corruption). And even if you do, that proves nothing about the overall efficacy of automated law enforcement.

I do believe the revenue-raising functions of the speed cameras should be rigidly segregated from the safety functions, and that safety should always be the guiding principle in camera placement. On the other hand, once that principle is in place, I have no problem with letting speeders contribute to the transportation revenue stream. The more such revenues are dedicated to traffic safety, the better.

Whether cameras or ordinary tickets, I have no problems with a "speed tax" -- more precisely a surcharge on moving violations to bolster the Transportation Trust Fund. I though it was a good idea when the Ehrlich administration proposed it. Too bad the General Assembly didn't agree.
Cheers,
Big Brother (eldest of 6)

I didn't read the Post blog, but given that cameras are now placed in residential areas, I'd hate to see arson or other outbursts. Also, it seems to me that drivers didn't object to enforcement cameras until they started being implemented in residential areas like neighborhood school zones and secondary neighborhood streets. Suddenly, people took them personally, and instead of being appreciative that the streets closest to their homes were being safety-enforced, they became annoyed at the inconvenience of having to obey the law on the roads they most frequently travel.

Cameras alone as used for law enforcement can be debated in various ways. But for speeding, people would get a fine whether a cop caught them or a camera. What's the difference? Some jurisdictions are hundreds of officers short. The cameras can stand in for officers in areas where traffic stops are dangerous (think 395 in D.C.) or where there aren't available units. You could take away the cameras and replace them with a cop at each location, but drivers would still be getting fines. So even when the means are different, the ends are the same. Which makes the actual means moot.

Plus, citizens have the same rights to defend/contest camera fines in court. There have been plenty of articles documenting the sympathy of judges, some of whom threw out tickets left and right. So it's not like there are no checks and balances in the system.

The cameras in Baltimore City are portable; they get moved around, rotated among locations and returned sometimes to exactly the same spot. From what we can tell on my street, the rotation is pretty predictable, based on calendar intervals rather than fine volume, so right now there's no indication that they're moving cameras based on $$. To me, this is different than the revenue disputes that came with red light cameras which were more permanently mounted, left in place forever to catch every single infraction, and seemingly distributed in much higher numbers. This seemed much more "Big Brother" to me, like drivers were being gouged. The speed cameras, on the other hand, seem to actually function like live officers would: there sometimes, and sometimes not.

BTW, one Sun columnist a while back complained about not being warned he was in a school zone, yet when I drove the same street I saw a huge daycare/private school sign a mere 20 feet from the camera box. How many more baseless arguments do speeders intend to lose before they just slow down? The law gives you 11 mph over the limit; it's not until the 12th that a fine occurs. It's not that hard for reasonable people to stay within an 11 mph range.

Wanna see if it's really about safety? Simply introduce legislation which separates the proceeds of these cameras from the jurisdiction which inflicts them upon us.

Give the money to some non-profit, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION, and the cameras will go away.

We need to fight these cameras!

I'm curious about where the funds are going in each local jurisdiction.

The legislation states that local jurisdictions “may spend any remaining balance solely for related public safety purposes, including pedestrian safety programs.”

It would seem appropriate to direct funds from school zones toward programs & infrastructure that would improve the safety of students walking & bicycling to school. Many jurisdictions around the state just applied to MDOT's Highway Safety Office for Safe Routes to School funding, so there are definitely needs that have been identified.

An article on where the funding is going would be very interesting and could help encourage local jurisdictions to put it where it should be, and maybe if there was a close nexus between the sources & uses it would reduce some of the frustration when people get the tickets (unlikely).