The "Free State" (Maryland) has become a Big Brother Police State! >=(

[Greenday]

Is it a money grab? Yea.

Are they making money off of people breaking the law in a dangerous way? Yea, and I have no issues with this.

[Shangri-laschild]

As for the cameras themselves, they are often hard to see. For one thing, they aren't yellow or any other high-visibility color. They're usually gray or beige and blend into the background. I believe this is done intentionally. Numerous local officials have stated ON RECORD before the cameras were deployed that they were being put in place "for public safety." But once they were deployed and operational, the same public officials stated, again, ON THE RECORD (i.e. ON AIR in live interviews) that the cameras weren't generating the amount of revenue they had budgeted for, and so they had to expand the program.

Budgeted for could easily mean that using them on a small scale vs a large scale meant that they weren't paying for themselves.

Data on traffic jams and accidents has shown that deploying these things actually INCREASES the number of accidents, INCREASING the danger to the public. In the meantime, there are older, tested methods of controlling the speed, such as speedbumps and electronic "radar gun" signs which display your speed, which are MORE effective at increasing public safety... but they DON'T increase that jurisdiction's REVENUE, which is what they're REALLY after. It's a MONEY GRAB, plain & simple. A Backdoor Tax... and that's exactly where MD's citizens are taking it... IN THE BACKDOOR without so much as a courtesy reach around!

What I understand is that a lot of why they create traffic jams is people seeing them and suddenly slowing down rather than going the correct speed the whole time. Which is a good argument for not making them incredibly obvious.

Also if you already know that you're going the speed limit (which from the sounds of it, you know and are doing intentionally) then a radar sign isn't going to have any effect. And comparing this to a tax doesn't work. They are fining you for breaking the law. It's not a tax if a cop pulls you over and writes you a ticket. This isn't either. If you don't want to contribute to what you see as a money grab then don't speed.

[MrsEclipse]

Can you post the link to the part of the site that isn't blowing this out of proportion? I live in Maryland too and I think we might be talking about two different Marylands, because I don't see the speed thing as such a glaring issue that the CommuNazis are giving our rights away to Big Brother and Judge Dredd.

[Jack T. Chance]

Can you post the link to the part of the site that isn't blowing this out of proportion? I live in Maryland too and I think we might be talking about two different Marylands, because I don't see the speed thing as such a glaring issue that the CommuNazis are giving our rights away to Big Brother and Judge Dredd.

I'll go one better, since it's become apparent that most people are just skimming over the site, rather than bothering to actually READ their rather informative articles!

Here's the latest rather lengthy article about one of the worst offenders in the area... the town of Forest Heights, MD...

Saturday, July 30, 2011
Tale of the Fishy Camera Logs

One of the arguments made to show that cameras are accurate is that they are “tested annually” by an “independent calibration lab” and “tested daily” by police or city officials. But what does that actually mean? Our investigation into camera logs in Forest Heights and other towns using Optotraffic cameras shows that “independent” testing is not quite so independent, that daily tests for “accuracy” show nothing of the sort. Plus officials are either unwilling or unable to show that a human operator was present at the time of the test.

Our search began in September when we first became aware of the reports of errors by Optotraffic speed cameras. The recipient of some questionable citations (who had also been unable to receive a timely court hearing) filed a public information act request (at our recommendation) for records pertaining to camera errors, maintenance of cameras, and causes for the delays in court hearings. The town denied her request for all information except the following log.


Click to enlarge

The driver showed us the log, and we immediately realized that the signature of the same “operator” had signed the log which states “Signature of operator who performed self-test prior to producing recorded images”…. For 42 consecutive days, including weekends (when the devices cannot legally issue tickets) and the 4th of July, with no days off, with signatures in nice neat straight rows. While we admire such a diligent employee it did raise suspicion, since almost nobody works 42 consecutive days. We also noticed that the released “log” excluded the "self test results” which are normally considered part of the “daily setup log” and are normally admitted as evidence as well.

On November 12 (2010), StopBigBrotherMD.org sent the town a follow-up request on behalf of this driver for the following information:

• the timecards, or if no timecard exists then other records of hours worked, for the speed monitoring system operator who signed the attached log for the speed monitoring system located at Indian Head Highway/Livingston Road NB, for all days from 6/22/2010 through 8/03/2010.
• A copy of the actual self test results (the actual output of the test), the system logs showing speed monitoring system's settings (threshold speed limit, setup-time, photo interval, etc), and system error logs for the speed monitoring system located at Indian Head Highway/Livingston Road NB on 7/4/2010, 7/5/2010, 7/8/2010, 7/20/2010, 7/22/2010, 7/27/2010.
• A copy of the certificate of calibration and/or calibration test record for the speed monitoring system referenced in the attached log.

The timecards of course would have proven whether or not the “operator” was in fact “working” on the day he signed that he “performed” the test. In other words, they would show whether the signed, sworn statement on a document admitted as evidence in court was true or not.

No response was received from Forest Heights within the 30 day time period permitted by law. The driver in this case eventually got a court hearing in December (2010) and needed to present her case without the requested evidence and was forced to pay the citations (this was before the technique for challenging citations based on time-distance calculations was well known). Finally in APRIL (2011) StopBigBrotherMD.org received a response from Forest Heights, denying access to timecards. However they did agree to release the camera logs and calibration certificates in exchange for a small fee. That response was back dated to December 16, 2010 (which was still after the 30 days permitted by law, and no response had been received in December). In May (2011) we sent payment for copies of the logs and calibration certificates which they had agreed to release. A month later we finally received these daily setup log files, but the annual calibration certificates were still missing from the released documents.

We quickly noticed that on every log file there was in fact a SECOND DATE, days or weeks after the test date. Most of the logs had the second date 7/28/2010 regardless of the date of the test. This seems to support the idea that the tests were all run automatically, and the ‘operator’ signed the statement after the fact. Which would indicate that the "operator" did not "perform" the test "prior to producing recorded images" as the signed log files stated. We also made a request for an administrative hearing with respect to the timecards, which as of this writing has not been honored.So what do these daily setup tests show? Well lots of fancy charts and numbers, and seems to indicate everything is working right and a ‘Speed Error’ which seems to be very small. But what is it actually testing? Since this is an automatic test, it could not possibly be an actual vehicle driving past the sensor, so what is the claim of accuracy based on?


Click to Enlarge

Well above the “speed error” it actually tells you that it is based on “GPS Timing to Sensor Fire Timing Results”…. It is merely comparing the device’s internal timer to the time generated by the GPS satellites. That’s all. This is supported by the statement from Optotraffic’s own technical document which describes the daily test as follows “the relative time between sensors is calibrated daily using the 1 pulse-per-second (PPS) signals from the Global Position System (GPS) satellites”. All the other items in the test are basically just saying the components are turned on and have power. Optotraffic’s assertion is that the mere fact that the beams are firing at the correct rate and that the device’s internal timer is correct that it is accurate to much less than 1mph. That is even though there is no test that the beams are aligned correctly, no ACTUAL speed measurement test, and certainly no test for the types of errors we have demonstrated are possible if the device’s two sensors strike different portions of the same vehicle.

But what about the annual test certificate? Certainly that test covers everything else, right? Well unfortunately to this date we have yet to receive the annual calibration certificates which Forest Heights stated they would provide. Police Chief Web stated that it was included in the documents he mailed us; it was not and he was informed of this, yet we have still to this date not received the certificates.

Fortunately, we have managed to acquire some calibration certificates from OTHER municipalities using Optotraffic cameras. According to Optotraffic’s technical document, the annual test is described as follows ”Each Lane Sensor is third-party calibrated annually (by Maryland law) to verify the beam distance”. That’s it. Optotraffic is basically asserting that if the ‘beam distance” is correct, and the internal timer is correct, then this means there are no other sources of error. Never mind any factors that could come up in the real world environment (as opposed to the laboratory) such as the fact that the device is mounted atop a 32 foot tall pole that sways in the wind, or that the two beams could strike different portions of the same vehicle.

We had previously managed to acquire a calibration certificate for one of New Carrollton’s cameras, which would have been one of the first such devices deployed anywhere in the state.


Page 1: Click to Enlarge



Page 2: click to enlarge

Observe the following:

1. On the first page you should note the following: The "Applied Specification" only says "Manufacturer Specification".. They ONLY tested what Optotraffic TOLD THEM TO. Basically Optotraffic wrote their own test, one they already knew they were certain to pass. Think of it as if the specification consisted of “the device will be 27 inches long” and they measured it with a ruler, INSTEAD OF testing the device as a whole to measure actual speeds. Optotraffic paid CustomCal to certify the device, but Optotraffic told them on what basis to test it.
2. The following disclaimer appears at the end of the "Measurement Assurance" section: "due to any number of factors, the recommended due date of the item calibrated does not imply continuing conformance to specifications during the recommended interval". This disclaims (or INVALIDATES) the entire test. These are mobile cameras, and have been handled in any of a number of ways between the date of that test and actual deployment, there is no way to know the beams are still properly aligned on the citation date. The distance between beams is NOT part of the daily test! In fact Optotraffic can, and has, modified the software on the devices over the course of the past years since the tests, and possibly the hardware as well. Arguably this should also void the certification since it is no longer exactly the same device that the test was run on.
3. Now notice on pages 2 and 3, the user name is "Don Cornwell", and on 001007, the "approver" is "Jose Tillard". Google "Jose Tillard Sigma Space" and you will see a Linkedin page for a systems engineer at Sigma Space. Google "Sigma Space Don Cornwell" and "Optotraffic Don Cornwell " and you will get the following email addresses: don.cornwell@sigmaspace.com and don.cornwell@optotraffic.com. Don Cornwell is the Chief Technical Officer of Optotraffic. In this case they actually crossed out Mr Cornwell’s name and wrote in the name of a custom cal official on the signature line. And then there’s the big word “Optotraffic” across page 2, rather than the name of the independent lab.
4. Notice also the word ‘speed SIMULATOR ID’… this was not an actual test of a moving vehicle, it was some form of automatic software system test. A ‘simulation’ performed by the Optotraffic employee, not a real world test by an independent lab on an actual moving object.

We also managed to later acquire some logs from Berwynn Heights. These were similar, showing the same “Manufacturer specification”, describing the speed test as a “speed simulator”, with the same Optotraffic employee username of dcornwell (or no username) for some of the speed simulator tests (in one case there was another user we could not identify). The Berwynn Heighs tests simply showed no signature on the pages.

A question worth asking is in what way is this level of testing adequate to ensure the reliability of the devices in a real world environment? It seems clear from the description of the tests that Optotraffic is making assumptions that only a limited number of issues can affect accuracy, with all other factors being ignored. And there is reason to believe the "operators" of the devices have in some instances been permitted to "operate" the devices while sitting on the beach. Optotraffic gets paid based on the number of tickets issued (Note: This is a VIOLATION OF MARYLAND STATE LAW REGARDING THE USE OF SPEED TRAP CAMERAS), and local governments profit significantly from them as well. The cameras in Forest Heights issued over $3 million worth of tickets last year. Forest Height’s entire budget prior to getting speed cameras was only $1.7 million. (We will discuss the creative bookkeeping jurisdictions are using to circumvent restrictions on camera money in a future posting). If it is being left up to those with such an enormous financial incentive to decide what constitutes adequate test, and with how loosely the law can be interpreted, can the public and the courts actually know whether the evidence being used against citizens is in fact reliable? We'd believe they know nothing of the sort, particularly given the number of speed measurement errors that have been reported already.

SOURCE

Now then, I HOPE everyone reading this sentence has COMPLETELY read the above. If you have and you still believe there's nothing shady going on here, I would suggest that YOUR JUDGEMENT IS PROBABLY IMPAIRED.

Good day.

[MrsEclipse]

I mean, it's certainly not the best of situations, but in the Western part of the state it's not nearly as bad as the website says it is. Where are the other sources for this? The site only links to other parts of itself.

[Jack T. Chance]

I mean, it's certainly not the best of situations, but in the Western part of the state it's not nearly as bad as the website says it is. Where are the other sources for this? The site only links to other parts of itself.

Are you sure we're looking at the same site?

'Cuz the front page of their site is practically COVERED in links to other sources!

Just to give one example... this is their newest article they posted... dated Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011...

Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Auto Insurance Industry Charges Maryland More Despite Increasing Camera Enforcement

Maryland drivers pay higher auto insurance premiums than drivers in most other states, and last year rates went up faster than in other states despite stricter enforcement of traffic laws which insurance industry funded groups support.

In 2010 Insure.com website ranked Maryland as the 17th most expensive state (links to Insure.Com website) for auto insurance, with an average rate of $1,550.13 compared to the national average of $1429.26. In 2011 Maryland moved up to 10th most expensive on the list (again linking to Insure.Com), with rates increasing substantially to $1807 (compared to a national average of $1,561). This was despite a tremendous expansion in the number and areas covered by cameras in 2010 which insurance industry funded groups have actively promoted.

Insure.com based their survey on the same insurance policy in each state with the same sample subject: a 40-year-old single male driver who commutes 12 miles to work, with policy limits of 100/300/50 and a $500 deductible on collision and comprehensive coverage. Another insurance group, insweb.com, examined the median rate per state and found similar result: listing Maryland as #2 most expensive in 2011 (links to insweb.com), moving up from 6th most expensive in 2010.

Insurance companies have promoted the use of photo enforcement nationwide by funding advocacy groups such as the IIHS (link goes to IIHS website) (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. In 2010 Maryland saw new deployments of speed cameras on interstate highways, and new local speed camera programs in Baltimore County and numerous municipalities in Prince George's County, while Montgomery county approved an unlimited number of new speed camera sites. This was in addition to the introduction of stricter traffic laws such as a new cell phone and texting bans. In theory measures which improve safety should lower costs for insurance companies and translate into lower rates. Yet as photo enforcement and other new restrictions on drivers were being implemented in Maryland our rates went up relative to other states.

DC, which has one of the most extensive speed and red light camera programs in the nation, performed similarly poorly in both rankings, coming out 6th most expensive in insweb's median cost ratings and 5th most expensive on insure.com's average cost rating for 2011. Next door Virginia, which has no speed cameras and only recently added red light cameras in a few cities, as which has comparable per-capita traffic fatality rates. Virginia was listed by insure.com as the 9th least expensive state, with an average rate $570 lower than Maryland. The 4 least expensive states for auto insurance according to either the average or median rankings have neither speeding nor red light cameras:
Insure.com : Vermont, South Carolina, Maine, Wisconsin
Insweb.com : Idaho, Maine, Vermont, and North Dakota

(states using speed and red light cameras based on data from the IIHS) (linking to the IIHS website again)

So, as you can see, they ARE citing their sources, as all responsible journalists should. You really can't use just the one article I posted previously as your only example. That was a follow-up to earlier articles. If you would follow those links and go back and read the earlier articles, you'll most likely find links to outside sources of this info.

But just to drive my point home, here's another example...

Monday, July 25, 2011
Annapolis City Council Prepares Speed Camera Ordinance

The Annapolis city council is preparing to discuss an ordinance to deploy speed cameras in the city (links to www.ci.annapolis.md.us). The first reading of the ordinance will be at a Monday July 25th special council session (links to Annapolis.gov).

A public hearing must still be scheduled before it can be voted on. Citizens can also express their opinions on the subject by contacting the city council (again linking to Annapolis.gov).

If one goes through the various stories on the StopBigBrotherMD.Org homepage, one will find numerous links to numerous outside sources... if one takes the time to hover their cursor over each link to see where each link points to.

[Jack T. Chance]

Latest news report in MD...

Alright, here's a story from a completely different source... www.wtop.com. WTOP is the leading news radio station in our area, with their signal covering most of MD, DC and Northern VA. The town of College Park, MD, home of the University of MD's main campus, has recently come under fire for its recent deployment of speed trap cameras made and operated by the infamous OptoTraffic...

AAA questions accuracy of College Park speed cameras

Wednesday - 8/17/2011, 4:22am ET

Hank Silverberg, wtop.com

WASHINGTON -- College Park speed cameras are under fire. AAA Mid-Atlantic says they aren't accurate and are placed to trap drivers.

More than 60,000 tickets have been issued since last fall, bringing in $2.4 million, 40 percent of which goes to the camera vendor (Note: Again in violation of Maryland State Law(s)), according to the automobile agency.

John B. Townsend II, manager of Public and Government Affairs for AAA Mid-Atlantic, points specifically to one camera on Mettzerott Road near the University of Maryland campus.

"It does not comply to state standards or county standards for school zones. It is a zone unto itself," he says.

Townsend says other cameras in town are placed to trap drivers.

In one area, he says, the speed limit increases from 30 mph to 40 mph within view of the camera.

"The person automatically starts speeding up and he gets a ticket."

But that's not the only issue.

Richard LaDieu, who drives part time for the University of Maryland, says he's been ticketed twice. Both speed cameras tickets were proven wrong by a chip in his car.

"It monitors everything the computer monitors in the car. It shows me what my speed was any one second, and what my maximum speed was any given trip," says LaDieu.

In both instances, the speed camera registered he was driving faster than his car chip recorded.

The camera vendor, OptoTraffic, just received the contract for all of Prince George's County's speed cameras.

Townsend says the town will get between $300,000 and $600,000 of the money generated. From there, what doesn't go to the vendor goes to the Prince George's County Police Department, which uses it to pay overtime to officers who review each ticket.

A call to the mayor of College Park about this issue was not immediately returned.

Follow Hank Silverberg and WTOP on Twitter.

(Copyright 2011 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

SOURCE

There ya go. Maybe this isn't happening in the outskirt, rural areas of the state, but here in Central MD, in between DC & Baltimore, it just keeps getting worse.

[Jack T. Chance]

Push to repeal speed cameras in Baltimore City...

Very interesting news out of Baltimore, as reported by StopBigBrotherMD.Org...

Saturday, August 20, 2011
Baltimore City Councilwoman Calls for Repeal of Speed Cameras

Baltimore City Councilwoman Belinda Conaway (D, District 7) has proposed legislation to end the use of speed cameras in Baltimore City. Conaway argued that if the devices had been working correctly to reduce speeding then revenues from (the speed cameras) should have been declining, but this has not occurred. "We can see that this is a safety measure that is not working."

Conaway proposed that the city department of transportation look at "hotspot areas" and create "traffic calming measures" in those areas. Other types of engineering traffic calming measures have been demonstrated to be at least as effective as speed cameras in controlling traffic speeds.

Conaway suggested that any city residents who wish to see speed cameras repealed need to let their council members know.

SOURCE

I predict that such occurrences are only going to become more common over time, especially amongst politicians that want to be re-elected!

[Jack T. Chance]

Alright... been several months since I updated this thread. There's been some fairly significant news out of MD regarding the Speed Trap Scameras that I haven't posted yet. Thankfully, StopBigBrotherMD.Org has just done a handy, dandy year-end wrap-up that covers all the major points... including the fact that at least one Judge in Prince George's County has now proven herself to be corrupt and is REFUSING to allow people to provide evidence that proves the cameras to be inaccurate!

Here's much more info...

Saturday, December 31, 2011
2011 Year in Review

It's been a busy year for Maryland speed camera. New speed cameras and new camera programs are popping up all over the state, with camera vendors and local governments all scrambling for their piece of what is now an over $77 million per year statewide industry (and growing). Here is our 2011 year in review:

1. Speed camera vendor ACS State and Local Solutions (A division of Xerox Corporation) was revealed to be running "Astroturf" website, claiming to be grass roots organizations supporting speed cameras in Baltimore County and Howard County, when in fact they were started by a public relations company hired by ACS. ACS revealed their affiliation with the websites only after the association was revealed by Patch.com. The campaign nevertheless proved successful, with Baltimore County voting to expand their program and Howard County voting to begin a new speed camera program.
   
   
   
2. A legislative change, which would have required that "workzone speed cameras" only be deployed in workzones where there are actual workers, was rejected by the state legislature. Current law permits "workzone" cameras to be used "regardless of whether workers are present", and many if not most of the tickets issued by SHA cameras so far have been issued when no work was taking place. The SHA this year began deploying cameras on I-270, in a zone where the speed limit is reduced by 10mph, and on the DC Beltway (495).
   
   
   
3. Legislation was proposed which would have removed all police oversight from the issuance of speed camera citations. StopBigBrotherMD.org argued that this change would increase the likelihood of errors and a reduced accountability by local governments. The requirement that sworn police approve citations was one of the main arguments made by camera supporters that there is an adequate level of review before citations are sent. The proposal which was rejected but the City of Rockville is lobbying to revive it, along with the city of Laurel (who initially proposed the change in 2011), and by the City of Gaithersburg.
   
   
   
4. Claims that all photo citations are currently inspected by police were questioned. In one incident, the City of Baltimore issued 2000 red light camera tickets which had been "approved" by a police officer who had been deceased for months.
   
   In another incident, Baltimore ticketed the wrong vehicle. The citations in fact did not clearly show the vehicle at all, and the plate number was not clear, indicating that citation review procedures apparently do not always include looking at the citation images. The ticketed motorist was forced to spend months getting the bogus citation removed from his record after his registration was flagged by the city.
   
   
   
5. It was revealed that speed cameras provided by speed camera vendor ACS to the SHA's freeway workzone camera program, to Baltimore County, and other jurisdictions all failed to meet a requirement that they be certified by an "independent calibration laboratory", instead the cameras were all certified by the vendor. Baltimore County was unable to answer questions about the testing of their cameras at the time of our inquiry. After StopBigBrotherMD.org exposed the fact to the state legislature and members of the press, ACS arranged to find a company willing to re-certify the devices.... meeting the letter of the law only after the devices had already been in use for over a year and issued hundreds of thousands of citations. Even after that, the devices were still only tested according to a "manufacturer specification", testing the frequency the devices transmit on, and were not certified by the IACP (a much higher standard that was a requirement of the SHA's rfp for speed monitoring systems).
   
   
   
6. Some jurisdictions in Maryland are engaging in the practices of issuing red light camera tickets to vehicles which come to a full stop but are past the white 'stop line'. The practice has been defended by Prince George's County authorities. Other jurisdictions have been issuing red light tickets for other types of "technical fouls" including rolling right turns. Public relation campaigns by camera vendors and local governments supporting red light cameras almost always focus on 'straight through' red light running, despite the fact that when 'technical fouls' are ticketed only a minority of tickets are for actual red light running.
   
   
   
7. The consumer advocacy group USPIRG released a report cautioning on the privatization of law enforcement associated with automated enforcement. The report cited the effects of turning law enforcement responsibilities over to for-profit companies, typically under contract arrangements which incentive them to maximize the number of tickets issued (a common practice in Maryland). It also warned of the political clout camera companies have accumulated through lobbying activities to increase the revenue potential of cameras. The report also warned that private vendors can conceal information from the public since they are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.
   
   
   
8. There has been an ongoing dispute over the accuracy of speed cameras built by Optotraffic, a division of Sigma Space Corporation. A business owner in Forest Heights successfully contested several citations issued to vehicles run by his business using time-distance calculations from citation images to show that the vehicles could not have been traveling the speed shown on the citations. Another motorist presented electronic evidence recorded by a "carchip" showing his vehicle had not been traveling the speed on the citation issued by an Optotraffic camera in College Park. Other motorists made their claims publicly in letters to the editor. Forest Heights responded to the charges by plagiarizing an earlier response from the town of Cheverly where similar claims had been made earlier. There were also frequent denials of requests for information about camera programs under the Maryland Public Information Act, camera logs which appear to have been falsified or filled out weeks after the fact, and motorists who tried to contest citations but were unable to get hearings for months or in some cases over a year. In addition, it was discovered that Optotraffic had removed information from citations, specifically lowering the precision of the timestamps from 3 decimal places to 1, after motorists started using the timestamped images to challenge speed readings.
   
   Optotraffic continued to deny the errors, and public officials in Prince George's County remained unconcerned about the issue, with the county having already selected Optotraffic as their vendor (a company which had made thousands of dollars in contributions to the campaign and inauguration of the County Executive.) Prince George's County unveiled a plan to deploy 72 new speed camera sites, with proposed locations including newly minted school zones created solely for speed camera use. One of the new cameras experienced technical glitches shortly after going online, but nevertheless the first few cameras pulled in $527,000 worth of fines in the first month.
   
   
   
9. After the county program started, Prince George's county courts eventually stopped hearing arguments about accuracy all together. One motorist contesting a citation from Forest Heights was arrested and throw in a detention cell merely for stating "I was not speeding" in court. Another Prince George's County Judge threw out the presumption of innocence completely, stating to an entire courtroom full of defendants prior to hearing any evidence that "The only defense that the court is going to accept if you were not the driver of the vehicle" and that the court would not consider any evidence questioning the accuracy of the devices.
   
   
   
10. Eventually the town of Cheverly disclosed documents PROVING that errors with Optotraffic cameras were real. The town's contract with Optotraffic was ended after the vendor failed to respond to questions from the town about errors, including cameras "recording" a bicycle going 57mph, "invisible vehicles" traveling 76mph, "false triggers" caused by moisture in the air, and "false speed readings for vehicles that have an irregular size such as buses and trucks with ladder racks." Optotraffic cameras are still being used in numerous municipalities, issuing thousands of tickets per month.

Given the rate at which automated enforcement is growing in the state, we're sure 2012 will be even more "interesting" than 2011. We'll be all over it.

And all this happened in the SAME year that former Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson and his wife were BOTH tried and CONVICTED of CORRUPTION... in a wide-spread scheme that has also result in several P.G. County Police Officers also being arrested and tried on various criminal charges. It's getting WORSE, much worse... and with that... 2012 IS the year I am moving out of the NO-LONGER-FREE State. I'm done.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I'm sorry. I LIVE in Maryland. Was born and raised here. I do not see what the @#$%ing problem is with speed cameras.

The way I see it is that people kvetch and whine about how evil it is for the police to implement things that allow them to stop people from breaking the laws.

Yes, let me re-state that. Most of these people are complaining about red light cameras that are intended to stop people who *break the law* by running red lights. Or that they are putting up speed trap cameras to catch people who *break the law* by going faster than the posted speed limits.

My wife has a rebuilt knee from some person who broke the law, ran a red light (hell didn't even slow down) and T-Boned her. He drove off (large 3/4 ton truck vs Jeep Wrangler...no contest). They never caught the guy. Gee! A camera would have helped get a licence plate number for the police to track down.

Or is the camera so EVIL that is better for some person to have gotten away with destroying a 18 year old's ability to walk for 5 years?

Oh and before you compare the people who are authorizing and installing the cameras to Nazi's...perhaps you can show me how these cameras kill people through excessive labor, starvation, firing squads, poison gas, exposure, medical experimentation and all the other things that the Nazi's did.

Otherwise perhaps you should be comparing it to something more...Orwellian.

[the_std]

I'm sorry, but I just have to say - I am trying to read your posts, Jack, and the formatting, colouring and highlighting make it nigh on impossible. Could you potentially tone it down and separate it into legible paragraphs or something so that it's decipherable?

[Greenday]

I'm sorry. I LIVE in Maryland. Was born and raised here. I do not see what the @#$%ing problem is with speed cameras.

How are they supposed to break the law if the cops continue using better technology to catch them? It's tougher to get away with it when they have you on tape breaking the law.

[Jack T. Chance]

I'm sorry. I LIVE in Maryland. Was born and raised here. I do not see what the @#$%ing problem is with speed cameras.

The way I see it is that people kvetch and whine about how evil it is for the police to implement things that allow them to stop people from breaking the laws.

Yes, let me re-state that. Most of these people are complaining about red light cameras that are intended to stop people who *break the law* by running red lights. Or that they are putting up speed trap cameras to catch people who *break the law* by going faster than the posted speed limits.

My wife has a rebuilt knee from some person who broke the law, ran a red light (hell didn't even slow down) and T-Boned her. He drove off (large 3/4 ton truck vs Jeep Wrangler...no contest). They never caught the guy. Gee! A camera would have helped get a licence plate number for the police to track down.

Or is the camera so EVIL that is better for some person to have gotten away with destroying a 18 year old's ability to walk for 5 years?

Oh and before you compare the people who are authorizing and installing the cameras to Nazi's...perhaps you can show me how these cameras kill people through excessive labor, starvation, firing squads, poison gas, exposure, medical experimentation and all the other things that the Nazi's did.

Otherwise perhaps you should be comparing it to something more...Orwellian.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Sorry that happened to your wife, BUT... it doesn't change the fact that across the country, slowly, various jurisdictions are starting to decide that the Red Light Cameras are NOT having the desired effect, and are looking at ENDING their Red Light Camera programs because the accident data is showing that they are actually CAUSING more accidents than they're preventing! We now have a good decade worth of accident data showing this to be the case.

As for your arguments about NAZIs versus Orwellian "Big Brother" stuff... you need to go read Orwell's 1984 again. The NAZIs were the National Socialist Party, and in 1984, "the Party" that the main character belongs to is the English Socialist Party. Also, read the book's description of what Big Brother looks like... it's describing someone that looks an awful lot like Adolf Hitler. Read the main character's description of the "Ideal Party Member"... he's describing Hitler's Aryan Master Race! Read his description of what the actual, typical Party member looks like... sounds an awful lot like what the typical NAZI looked like. It's all right there, in black & white, on the printed page.

Bottom-line, Orwell was theorizing about what might have happened if the NAZIs had WON WWII and had succeeded in spreading Socialism around the world. That's what I took from the novel when I read it.

I'm sorry, but I just have to say - I am trying to read your posts, Jack, and the formatting, colouring and highlighting make it nigh on impossible. Could you potentially tone it down and separate it into legible paragraphs or something so that it's decipherable?

I do apologize, most of the color formatting is due to the zany color scheme of this forum's theme, although I've changed the few instances of red highlighting on the points I wanted to draw attention to over to orange instead. Hope that helps.

As for the spacing, blame the forum's built-in formatting for Numbered Lists. I inserted some extra paragraph breaks in-between the numbered points, hope that helps.

[Jack T. Chance]

How are they supposed to break the law if the cops continue using better technology to catch them? It's tougher to get away with it when they have you on tape breaking the law.

I grow tired of pointing this out, so this will be the last time...

The cameras being used throughout Prince George's County, MD are made by Optotraffic and have proven to be HIGHLY inaccurate, FRAUDULENTLY SO. Anytime you have a camera ticketing NON-EXISTENT or INVISIBLE vehicles, that should tell you something! The laws in the state of MD clearly state that the camera must be calibrated so that it's only triggered if you are going 12 MPH over the speed limit. With Optotraffic cameras, you could get a ticket going 12 MPH UNDER the speed limit! And the one & only Judge that is assigned the cases if you fight the ticket has now proven that she is corrupt by completely discarding the legal presumption of innocence, and is REFUSING to hear any evidence that proves that the Optotraffic cameras are in error!

If you want to live in a corrupt police state that wants to issue tickets to people that DID NOT break the law, all in the name of revenue, by all means, have at it. Then again, you're from New Jersey, so I shouldn't expect you to know any better when you're from a state that won't even let you legally make a LEFT TURN to get to the place you're going!

[Greenday]

proven to be HIGHLY inaccurate, FRAUDULENTLY SO.

Maybe I missed it, but other than some claims of "I wasn't actually speeding" and "My car's computer chip (which we don't know is accurate) said I wasn't speeding", I don't see any proof of such a claim.