Maryland Citizens Against Speed Cameras

[Mark The Homer]

There is an initiative by a group called Maryland for Responsible Enforcement to collect as many signatures as possible to overturn the new MD law allowing speed cameras statewide. In short, there's a provision in the state Constitution which allows citizens to petition just-passed laws to referendum.

I found out about this from an article in the WP this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052501975.html

Here's the site:

http://scamera.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/welcome/

It's also on facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=79463282773&ref=mf#/group.php?gid=79463282773&ref=mf

I'm signing. I hope you will do the same.

Make sure you sign so that it exactly matches your name in the Board of Elections.

Ex. John H. Smith, not John Smith, you don't have to spell out your middle name, but you do need the initial if the name or initial is in the Board of Elections.

Print the petition here - you have to print two pages - front and back. If you can't print front and back, attach them somehow (e.g. stable them).

http://scamera.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sb277-petition-front-and-back.pdf

[MattFancy]

I'm with you on this one MTH. We don't need speed cameras. We don't need cameras that watch our every move!

['Skins_&_'Stons]

I read the article this morning & will be signing as well. Thanks for posting the info, Mark!

[Ingtar]

Definitely signing on for this.

[TimmySmith]

Didn't the people vote in slots? Where are they?

Our dear leaders people's republic of Maryland do as they please.

[da#1skinsfan]

speed cameras are an absolute travesty and just another way for the govt to try and tax us based on whats "for our own good." its disgusting.

ill definitely sign.

[Corcaigh]

In some places, especially dangerous junctions or where there a lot of pedestrians, I'm in favor of cameras.

They work at improving road safety. They usually don't make money as they are expensive to install and operate.

An independent survey in the UK showed a 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries at junctions where the cameras were used over a three year period.

[No_Pressure]

6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

When you speed down a road, get pulled over by a cop, and get a ticket, you can request a court date. On that court date you will show up in court as the defendant against the accuser- the police officer. Everybody knows this- all U.S. citizens have the right to face their accuser.

With a speed camera your accuser is a piece of machinery. It isn't like a trial where a picture or something is used as evidence, it is the evidence, 100%. Now in that case they say the state is your accuser, and the camera is evidence. So does that mean similar speeding violations handed out by police officers should be presided over by a representative of the state with the specific officer in question labeled as "evidence"?

When you have an accuser that can speak, make points, etc. the burden of proof is on the accuser a.k.a. the police officer, it is the way our entire justice system works. When the accuser is a machine the burden of proof is on the defendant. Guilty until proven innocent.

Speeding is illegal, it's wrong, and it should be punished. I say that as a person who speeds every time he sets foot in a car, hell I got a speeding ticket in Pennsylvania from a highway patrol cop yesterday and I was fine with it. You break the law, you pay the fine, I understand and I would never argue in favor of breaking the law. It's just that if I'm going to be caught and accused, it had better be by a real person and not a camera that makes me guilty until proven innocent. A camera can't show up to court and tell a judge how exactly I broke the law. Sure a rep. of the state can do that and use the camera as evidence, but you can't have two different standards for the same freaking fine. If your accuser is actually the evidence then I should show up for my ticket hearing in PA and see a state rep, and a police officer sitting on the table with a big "Exhibit A" sign on his forehead.

Oh and it does help with school zones. I don't think it helps in most cases I think it's just a money maker 90% of the time, but when you have a camera right in front of a school it really does help. A few kids were hit and killed in the street right in front of my school over the years, and cameras keep people going reasonable speeds there.

I would rather see cops than cameras however.

[TimmySmith]

6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

When you speed down a road, get pulled over by a cop, and get a ticket, you can request a court date. On that court date you will show up in court as the defendant against the accuser- the police officer. Everybody knows this- all U.S. citizens have the right to face their accuser.

I would rather see cops than cameras however.

The 5th Amendment states "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", but try not taking the breathlyzer or not doing a field test, try not signing the ticket. Let's face it, traffic enforcement is mostly unconstitutional, and traffic laws are in force to make money for the state.

[China]

Man Hopes to Cash In On Speed Camera Law

By Dan Morse

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 8, 2009

Steven Forage, a software salesman who spends at least five hours a day in his car, juggles a lot on the road: finalizing deals over the phone, sipping coffee, checking e-mail. One thing he no longer worries about, though, is speed cameras.

"Fuzz alert," an electronic voice called out from the console of his Cadillac recently as it approached a speed enforcement camera in Montgomery County.

At 300 feet, another warning: "Ding, ding. Ding, ding. Fuzz alert."

"It helps you conform," Forage said of the warning system. "If you've forgotten where the cameras are, or get distracted, it refocuses you."

The system, known as PhantomAlert, feeds the locations of speed cameras and red-light cameras into standard Global Positioning System devices and prompts the devices to warn drivers when they are near one. PhantomAlert has subscribers throughout the nation, including more than 2,000 in the Washington region, said the company's owner, District resident Joseph Scott.

Scott said he expects that number to rise because of a new Maryland law that permits cameras, now allowed only in Montgomery, to be installed in work zones and near schools throughout the state. "It's going to be very good for us," he said.

Scott said police should be thrilled by PhantomAlert, particularly because officials say speed cameras are designed not to generate money but to slow drivers.

Click on the link for the full article

[LaxBuddy21]

I saw that yesterday and looked into it. My only issue is I dont keep my GPS up and on all the time....

[Larry]

Hey, I think we should pass Constitutional Amendments making those anti-shoplifting tags illegal, too.

----------

OK, I'm only somewhat serious. But I am, somewhat.

The speed cameras trigger when somebody is breaking the law.

Whereas, when those shoplifting tag detectors go off, what are the odds that they've actually caught a shoplifter, versus the odds that they've "caught" a customer who actually purchased something, and the cashier failed to zap the tag?

[skinsfan44]

Thanks for posting this, Mark.

I will be signing this petition.

[MattFancy]

I thought I read somewhere that they didn't get enough signatures for the petition.

Edit: Here's the link from the Baltimore Sun.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.petition02jun02,0,7285222.story

[Prosperity]

instead of wanting selective enforcement of traffic laws, you guys should just raise the speed limits

[zoony]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

[Larry]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

Agreed.

I was kind of under the impression that, in order for society to punish someone for breaking the law, they were kind of obligated to prove that a particular person committed a particular crime at a particular time.

Frankly, I'd like speed (and red light) cameras a whole lot more if they photographed the license plate and the driver.

(I also believe that if they were easily portable, so they could be moved weekly or monthly, then they'd be a whole lot more effective at changing behavior.)

(But, those kind of things would reduce their profit.)

[Prosperity]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

good point

[Mark The Homer]

Thanks for posting this, Mark.

I will be signing this petition.

I thought I read somewhere that they didn't get enough signatures for the petition.

Edit: Here's the link from the Baltimore Sun.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.petition02jun02,0,7285222.story

Yes. The initiative failed. Too bad.

I'm not against law enforcement. I just don't think it should be done electronically, or mechanically, or whatever, with no people involved (besides the guy who mails the **** out).

[Larry]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

The short answer is "They don't. That's why it doesn't show up on your driving record."

[Mark The Homer]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

Amen.

Today I read the best response yet re speed cameras. I don't know how any American can read this and not be against them.

Unfortunately it's not online so I'll type out the good parts...

Nevermind, I'll take a pic:

[IbleedBnG83]

How can they prove it is you driving the vehicle? That's my main problem with all of those camera systems.

.....

The argument is that you are not going to get a point on the license, which IMO is a bigger deal than the actual fine, b/c insurance rates will eff you.

They can't prove it was the owner, but the owner is responsibile for whoever is driving the vehicle and its up to the owner to collect from whomever is driving it.

Similar to when McNair got in trouble for letting his friend drive his car under the influence. His friend (the driver) didn't just get in trouble, but so did McNair.

[Titaw]

The argument is that you are not going to get a point on the license, which IMO is a bigger deal than the actual fine, b/c insurance rates will eff you.

They can't prove it was the owner, but the owner is responsibile for whoever is driving the vehicle and its up to the owner to collect from whomever is driving it.

Similar to when McNair got in trouble for letting his friend drive his car under the influence. His friend (the driver) didn't just get in trouble, but so did McNair.

McNair was in the car with him and McNair KNEW of the driver's condition BEFORE getting in the car and handing is friend the keys. That is why McNair was responsilbe NOT because the car was simply his.

Your argument is moot. You can't be responsible for something you have NO control over. If I lend my brother my car and he drives it and kills a pedestrian running across the street, I AM NOT responsible for that person's death, just because it is my car. This is because I have no control over the situatuion. When you lend your vehicle to someone, you trust that person enough to obey all laws. If they break the law a police office doesn't mail you a ticket as well, the individual driving gets the ticket.

[MattFancy]

McNair was in the car with him and McNair KNEW of the driver's condition BEFORE getting in the car and handing is friend the keys. That is why McNair was responsilbe NOT because the car was simply his.

Your argument is moot. You can't be responsible for something you have NO control over. If I lend my brother my car and he drives it and kills a pedestrian running across the street, I AM NOT responsible for that person's death, just because it is my car. This is because I have no control over the situatuion. When you lend your vehicle to someone, you trust that person enough to obey all laws. If they break the law a police office doesn't mail you a ticket as well, the individual driving gets the ticket.

But your insurance would go up unless you have that person covered on your insurance.

[IbleedBnG83]

McNair was in the car with him and McNair KNEW of the driver's condition BEFORE getting in the car and handing is friend the keys. That is why McNair was responsilbe NOT because the car was simply his.

The law in Tennessee doesn't stipulate knowing or not. I did the research on the law called "DUI by consent". Apparently, even if you are NOT present, you can be charged with a DUI as the owner of the vehicle. When you go to court, you could easily contest it, but the facts remain.

Your argument is moot. You can't be responsible for something you have NO control over. If I lend my brother my car and he drives it and kills a pedestrian running across the street, I AM NOT responsible for that person's death, just because it is my car. This is because I have no control over the situatuion. When you lend your vehicle to someone, you trust that person enough to obey all laws. If they break the law a police office doesn't mail you a ticket as well, the individual driving gets the ticket.

Its not MY argument, its AN argument.