Legislation to End Workerless Workzone Cameras Reintroduced

Legislation has been introduced to the general assembly which would remove a provision of state law which currently allows freeway "workzone" speed monitoring systems to be used "regardless of whether workers are present".  The proposed legislation (Senate Bill 57   and House Bill 326) would allow the cameras only when a worker is present on the roadway, median divider, or shoulder within or adjacent to the work zone. 

The proposed legislation was introduced last year as Senate Bill 30 and was championed by Senator Jim Brochin.  The bill was killed in committee.  This year the legislation is being sponsored by Senators Brochin(D, District 42), Jacobs(R, District 34), Kittleman(R, District 9), and Stone(R, District 6), and in the house by a bipartisan group of 46 lawmakers : Delegates Frank (R, District 42), Aumann (R, District 42), Bates (R, District 9A), Beitzel(R, District 1A), Boteler(D, District 8), Bromwell(R, District 8), Cluster(R, District 8), Conaway(D, District 40), DeBoy(D, District 12A), Dwyer(R, District 31 ), Eckardt(R, District 37B ), Elliott(R, District 4B ), Fisher(R, District 27B), George(R, District 30), Glass(R, District 34A), Guzzone(D, District 13), Hogan(R, District 3A), Hough(3B, District 3B), Impallaria(R, District 7), Jacobs(R, District 36), Kach(R, District 5B), Kelly(D, District 1B), Kipke(R, District 31), McConkey(R, District 33A), McDermott(R, District 38B), McDonough(R, District 7), Miller(R, District 9A), Minnick(D, District 6), Mitchell(D, District 44), Morhaim(D, District 11), Myers(R, District 1C), Norman(R, District 35A), Olszewski(D, District 6), Otto(R, 38A), Parrott(R, District 2B), Ready(R, District 5A), Robinson(D, District 40), Schuh(R, District 31), Schulz(R, District 4A), Serafini(R, District 2A), Smigiel(R, District 36), Stocksdale(R, District 5A), Szeliga(7, District 7), Vitale(R, District 33A), Weir(D, District 6), Wood(D, District 29A).

The current wording of state law permits citations to be issued on interstate highways in 'workerless' work zones where no actual work has been taking place for an indefinite period of time.  Some workzones have reduced speed limits, even when no work is taking place and all lanes are wide open and un-obstructed.  Data from the SHA website shows that the 'SafeZones' program has issued approximately 849,442 citationsas of 1/24/2012, with cameras now deployed on most of the major interstate highways in the state.  Many of those $33million worth of citations were issued when no workers were present and no work taking place.

The SHA had previously written two reports showing how other types of speed control, "speed display trailers" and "Portable Changeable Message Signs with Speed Display" were extremely effective at reducing average traffic speeds in work zones.... producing average speed reductions of 2-7mph and 5.6-7.9MPH respectively.  This is as good if not better than the speed reductions the SHA has claimed were produced by speed monitoring systems, yet the use of such relatively inexpensive traffic engineering solutions was NOT made standard by the SHA in workzones where speed monitoring systems are NOT in use.

And why should other traffic engineering solutions be considered, when they can treat the every problem as a law enforcement problem and extract money from motorists?  And if the cameras, or the reduced speed limit set to keep cameras profitable, produce a little extra traffic congestion due to overly cautious motorists slamming on the brakes at camera sites  --  all when there is no work taking place and thus no threat to worker safety--  oh well.  It's just a few hundred thousand peoples' time being lost every day for NO safety benefit.  And certainly not for any benefit which according to the SHA's own studies could be achieved in other ways.

Citizens who have an opinion on this legislation can find their own legislators' contact information at www.mdelect.net.

Photographing Cops in Maryland a Risky Proposition

Police departments in Maryland can photograph motorists with impunity.  But as one photo journalist learned, police in Montgomery County have a serious double standard when it comes to citizens photographing cops. 

Photo Journalist Mannie Garcia of Kensington shot a video of Montgomery County Police on June 16, 2011 making an arrest.  According to Garcia's account ""When an officer came up to me, I let the camera go, I opened up my hands, and I said, 'I'm Mannie Garcia, and I'm with the press.' Then two things happened at about the same time: he grabbed me by the neck and says, 'That's it, you're under arrest'; and he pulled my arm behind me, put me in a choke hold, and started dragging me across the street."

Police charged him with "disorderly conduct".  The account in the police report differs wildly from that of the reporter.  Garcia lost his white house press credentials due to the charges, which need to be renewed every year.  He was eventually acquitted of all charges against him in December, and stated that he might seek a civil rights suit against the county.  The card containing the video he was taking the video was never returned.   Garcia claims the incident is an example of a "catch and release" policy used by police to stop photographing off arrests by journalists by charging with offenses such as trespassing, resisting arrest, or disorderly conduct.

In 2010, two citizens were charged under Maryland wiretapping laws for filming police officers. An attorney general's opinion was issued that filming police is not illegal.  No worries though, plenty of other charges they can make up.  Meanwhile, surveillance of Maryland drivers by police continues to expand with no end in sight.

Studies Refute Insurance and Camera Company Red Light Camera Claims

New studies from Kansas City and Florida debunk claims by the insurance industry and photo enforcement companies that red light cameras reduce accidents.

A report appearing in the Florida Public Health Review evaluated claims made by a previous report by the IIHS  (an insurance industry funded group) which had claimed that red light cameras broadly reduced accidents in many US cities.  The critique, entitled "Counterpoint: The Insurance Institute for highway Safety Study Actually Found Cities Using Red Light Cameras Had Higher Red Light Running Fatality Rates" was written by three PhDs identified numerous flaws in the IIHS study (read complete report  and the report summary on the hsc.usf.edu web site).  "Our review reveals the 2011 IIHS study is logically flawed and violates basic scientific research methods that are required for a study’s findings to be valid. It has neither internal nor external validity."

The Florida report noted that there was an extreme sampling bias in the study, given that 25% of the cities in the 'control' group in the IIHS study had extremely low red light running fatality rates(0-2) in the "before" period, and as such it would have been impossible for those cities to 'improve' in the after period.  The Florida study also noted some math errors in the IIHS data "For example, population is the denominator in both outcome measures reported (e.g., fatalities per 100,000-population), as well as a numerator in the variable 'population per square mile."

The Florida report concluded "Thus, cities using cameras are estimated to have a 25 percent higher red light running fatality rate in the 'after' period relative to cities not using cameras, despite the greater reported percent reduction in the former," and that "This suggests other interventions were more effective in lowering fatality rates at signalized intersections. However, the authors of the IIHS study did not cite these findings."

The Florida report also noted that insurance companies actually make more revenue in those states where red light camera tickets carry 'points', and that in fact insurance companies actually make more money if tickets are accompanied by 'points', or and are 'ambivalent' about reducing accident accident rates because "crashes resulting from engineering defects of automobiles can be imputed to drivers, which is also true of roadway engineering defects, such as yellow light timings that are set too short, thereby forcing red light running".  So if traffic engineering decisions make accidents more likely, your insurance rates go up and the insurance company may make the same or even more money in the long term.


Meanwhile, a study by the Kansas City Police showed that overall accidents increased after red light cameras were deployed.  "In the cameras’ second year of use, accidents were higher at 11 of the 17 intersections being monitored. Overall, wrecks were up 18 percent at those locations." writes the Kansas City Star.  The study also showed
"• Wrecks more than doubled at 59th Street and Bruce R. Watkins Drive, the intersection that posted the largest increase.

• Rear-end wrecks were the most common type of wreck in all three years studied, before and after the cameras were installed."  
The Kansas City report also noted that more than half of the violations written were going to motorists who don't stop completely before turning right at a red light, rather than for 'straight through' red light running.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/23/3387905/kc-police-study-suggests-red-light.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/23/3387905/kc-police-study-suggests-red-light.html#storylink=cpy

Baltimore City Speed Camera Issues Ticket To the Dead

WBFF reports that a Speed Camera in Baltimore City issued a citation to an Anne Arundel County man who passed away over 3 years previously.

The citation was issued by a camera on Sinclair Lane in Baltimore to Michael Keith for traveling 43mph in a 30mph zone on November 25, 2011 and demanded a $40 payment.  Unfortunately Mr Keith was unable to pay the fine or contest the citation, having passed away in 2008.  The family of the deceased stated that neither the tag nor the pickup truck shown on the citation were ever owned by Michael.  The family was originally concerned about identity theft.  After police were contacted, they stated that the tag was in fact not even valid. "The fact that my son passed away in May of 2008 and something like this is surfacing in November of 2011... which it's really against his name.  It's not right. It's not something that should happen." stated the mother of the deceased.

See complete story on WBFF

The camera, owned by ACS State and Local Solutions (a division of Xerox Corporation) is located at one of approximately 142 sites published by the city of Baltimore.  Baltimore officials, like all jurisdictions using speed cameras, claim that all photo citations are carefully reviewed before being issued.

In February 2011, WBALTV reported that a police officer who had been deceased for months had 'signed' 2000 red light camera citations after his death.  Also in February 2011, StopBigBrotherMD reported on another instance where a Baltimore City camera cited the wrong vehicle, where the image was so dark the vehicle was barely visible.  In that instance it took the motorist 7 months to get the flag cleared from his registration at the MVA, eventually telling StopBigBrotherMD that he would seek to register his car in another state to avoid these types of problems in the future.  In April of 2010, WBFF news reported that a speed camera in the city of Baltimore had mistakenly issued over 900 citations when it was configured to the wrong speed limit.

National Camera News: Iowa Town Blames "Bermuda Triangle" For Speed Camera Errors

Engineers from Speed camera vendor Redspeed have blamed erroneous speed measurements recorded on the town of Fort Dodge, IA on an electromagnetic anomaly dubbed by the police chief as the "Bermuda Triangle". 

"Police Chief Tim Carmody called the spot in the 1200 block of Sixth Avenue North the ''Bermuda Triangle." It's a spot where drivers of school buses, big panel trucks and similar vehicles have been clocked speeding by the city's mobile speed camera and radar unit even though they were obeying the 25 mph speed limit.

The problem was brought to the attention of the City Council on Dec. 19 by drivers who had wrongly received tickets in that area.

Carmody said Monday police officers did extensive testing after those complaints were received. He said they found that for a fraction of a second the speed of a large vehicle was doubled on the radar system in that block."

Now is this the part where they tell everyone "Don't speed and you won't get a ticket"?

Read the complete story on The Messenger

2012 to See Addition of Numerous Camera Sites

Numerous municipalities and county governments in Maryland are planning to expand or implement new camera programs this coming year.

Prince Georges is planning on adding as many as six new cameras each month this year, with the goal of having 72 by July, according to the Washington Examiner.  In the short period of time the county's current 20 cameras have been in place(since September) they have issued over 93,425 citations (face value $3.7million).

Baltimore County is planning on adding additional camera sites to its, so far, relatively small program. Under the current contract, speed camera vendor ACS State and Local Solutions (a division of Xerox Corp) receives close to 90% of the revenue, prompting some council members to seek a renegotiation of the contract terms.

In addition, other jurisdictions such as Hagerstown and Mount Airy are currently considering in the process of implementing speed camera programs, hoping for their own cut of what is now an over $77milion industry statewide.  Hagerstown approved a contract with Brekford Corp to provide up to 16 cameras in exchange for 39% of the revenue.  "Where not already established by the state, the city will still need to define its school zones and speed limits in those zones though another ordinance" Hagerstown Police Chief Smith said -- and indication that the designation of new school zones never previously marked as such (what has recently become an extremely common practice), or even altering existing speed limits (almost certainly downwards if other jurisdictions are any indication), may be on the table in that city.

Mount Airy raised a similar possibility of both creating new school zones and altering some speed limits as it began discussing the implementation of speed cameras. 

DC Issuing Parking Tickets to Motorists Who Paid

The Washington Examiner reports that the Districts 'pay by phone' parking system is causing numerous drivers to get parking tickets even though they paid.

Annandale resident Kristin Stone and her daughter found a ticket on their car last week, even after accidentally paying twice for the space outside Arena Stage. Customer service at ParkMobile, the company that runs the service, was unhelpful, they said.
"I was pretty upset. I was very frustrated," Stone said. "It wasn't working, and I thought they should make it right. If they want it to succeed in D.C., they should be taking all measures."
Stone's daughter Elizabeth said she's already received three tickets after paying by phone, two of which were dismissed after she appealed them.
Arlington resident Laura Howell was not so lucky. She received three tickets after paying by phone, none of which was dismissed after she fought them. She tries not to park in D.C. anymore, she said.
"The mobile payment system is flawed and should not be grounds to receive a ticket until all system issues are resolved," she told The Washington Examiner.

DC acknowledged to the Examiner that "glitches" are causing about 25 tickets to be mistakenly issued every day.  "We're working to eliminate those problems, and if it does happen to somebody, they can appeal to the Department of Motor Vehicles."  

Read more at the Washington Examiner

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 are all scrambling for their piece of what is now an over $77million 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 revelead by Patch.com.  The campaign nevertheless proved successful, with the Baltimore County 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 likelyhood of errors and a reduce 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 this 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, which 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.

Mount Airy Considers Speed Cameras, Creating New School Zones

The town of Mount Airy is considering the deployment of speed cameras, in a plan which involves creating new school zones specifically for speed camera use and possibly lowering speed limits as well.

Read Full Story>>

Speed Cameras Now a $77Million Industry in Maryland

The Maryland Comptroller's office has released data to StopBigBrotherMD.org in response to a Public Information Act request revealing that 13 municipalities reported speed camera revenue totaling $36million in the Fiscal Year from July, 2010-June30 2011.  Combined with other cities, counties, and the State of Maryland's program whose revenue data is available in open sources, this adds up to approximately $77million worth of speed camera revenue in one year, or the equivalent of approximately 1.9million citations.

When Statewide speed cameras were passed, a provision of the law  law includes a provision that
"(ii)    1.   For any fiscal year, if the balance remaining from the fines collected by a political subdivision as a result of violations enforced by speed monitoring systems, after the costs of implementing and administering the systems are recovered in accordance with subparagraph (i)1 of this paragraph, is greater than 10% of the total revenues of the political subdivision for the fiscal year, the political subdivision shall remit any funds that exceed 10% of the total revenues to the Comptroller."

All municipalities running speed camera programs were required to file an SMS-1 form with the comptroller's office reporting their total speed camera revenue, program expenses, total municipal budget, and remit a portion of their revenue if it exceeded 10% of their budget.  Only 10 jurisdictions reported by the deadline, with 3 more reporting within 6 weeks after the due date with the Comptroller's consent.  The data reported was as follows:

Several Municipalities running speed camera programs did not report by the due date, including Rockville, Gaithersburg, New Carrollton, Glenarden, District Heights, Capital Heights, Landover Hills, Chestertown, Seat Pleasant, and Frederick.  It is not obvious whether the volume of the tickets issued by any of these programs in FY11 would have been sufficient for them to have owed any revenue to the state under the provision, or whether they received permission for the delay in reporting.

Only 5 jurisdictions owed money under the '10% rule': Riverdale Park, College Park, Forest Heights, Chevy Chase, and Mount Rainier.  Baltimore had by far the largest haul among cities, but due to the size of their budget was nowhere near the provision.

When adding to this the value of citations issued by the State of Maryland, and revenue reported by several other jurisdictions in open sources, this adds up to a one year total of over $77million.

There was insufficient public information available for Glenarden, District Heights, Capital Heights, Landover Hills, Chestertown, Seat Pleasant, or Frederick to estimate their revenue totals so the total amount could be somewhat greater.

Most of the jurisdictions included the speed camera revenue (including the contractor's fee) as part of their 'total revenue' reported to the Comptroller and used that to compute the maximum 10% they were allowed to retain.  If the amount of revenue earned is modest this has only a small effect.  However in the case of Forest Heights and Chevy Chase the effect was huge:  Forest Height in particular had more revenue from speed camera than from all other sources, meaning that the 10% they were permitted to retain actually represented increasing their budget without speed camera revenue by 22.13%.  This way of measuring budget size also permitted the town of Brentwood from paying any revenue to the Comptroller under this rule.

In addition 'expenses' were not defined by the state law.  Chevy Chase in particular cited 72% of their speed camera revenue as an expense, largely because they had shifted regular police salaries into the 'expenses' of the safe speed budget, declaring over $360,000 worth of police salaries as expenses of the speed camera program. Forest Heights also appears to have a larger than normal portion of 'expenses', declaring expenses which are approximately $270,000.00 above their contractor's fee : an amount equal to about10% of their non-speed camera funded budget.  This means that all together Forest Heights used speed cameras to increase their budget by more than 30% beyond what it would have been without speed cameras.

Forest Heights apparently plans to retain a larger proportion of this revenue in FY2012, having included an undefined $4,492,524.00 "INTERGOVERMENT" fund as part of their FY2012 budget.  This means that their budget used to compute their "10%" in FY2012 is projected to be $7,768,726.00, compared to a budget of less than $2million prior to the town's adoption of speed cameras... more than tripling the size of their budget in 3 years.  The Comptroller was asked in our Public Information Act request for an opinion as to whether counting this type of fund for this purpose was legal, and stated that they were unable to provide one. 

In addition to the municipalities reporting, Rockville earned a projected $2.1million in revenue and Gaithersburg $2.4million.  New Carrollton did not file a report within the scheduled timeframe, but their FY12 budget document showed a projected $750,000 in speed camera revenue for FY11.  Baltimore County collected about $2.3million.  

Montgomery County's FY12 budget projected speed camera revenues in FY11 of $10,687,000 in citations, as well as $1,200,000 in late fees and $320,000 in flagging fees.  The $25 late fees imposed by most camera programs have the potential to increase revenues earned from the tickets.  In addition the contractors collect an additional fee of about $3 per ticket from drivers who pay through their online payment websites, adding to their bottom lines.

Total payments to the State of Maryland by municipalities were $2,241,385.00.  Of the 5 jurisdictions who reached the threshold under this provision, 4 of them were Optotraffic contractors.  The Optotraffic programs who reported brought in a total of $13million (and several others did not report), placing Optotraffic's cut of that revenue at over $5million.  ACS State and Local Solutions however remains the largest contractor, since they control the large contracts with Montgomery County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, Chevy Chase, and the State of Maryland.

The only program to claim a loss was Cheverly, who reported expenses exceeding camera revenues.  Cheverly's contract with Optotraffic was recently broken off after they experienced numerous technical issues.  Documents released by Cheverly revealed that the Optotraffic cameras they had been using (the same type used by programs in College Park, Forest Heights, New Carrollton, Riverdale Park, Prince George's County, and several other jurisdictions) had produced speed measurement errors, a revelation which supports the assertions by some who claimed they received erroneous citation from Optotraffic Cameras in jurisdictions like Forest Heights, College Park, and Brentwood, where alleged errors have also been reported.  Cheverly had at one time predicted annual speed camera revenue of $2,808,500.00 in FY11 in an earlier version of their 5 year budget forecast.  But instead after several citizens complained about receiving erroneous tickets the town was forced to institute tighter procedures.  They eventually experienced new technical issues which forced them to stop approving citations and take cameras offline, and the revenue never materialized.  After the contractor was unable to resolve or adequately explain the problems, Optoraffic declared that Cheverly's speeding problem was 'solved', broke of the contract, and Cheverly signed a new contract with speed camera contractor Brekford corp who uses a different model of camera.  Cheverly then took the appropriate and courageous step of coming clean and released the telling documents revealing the issues they had experienced.  We will never know for sure how much if any of the revenue collected by the many other jurisdictions using these cameras might have come from innocent drivers, and their contractor denies any errors have ever occurred.

The State's own SafeZones program issued a total of 522,802 citations during the same July 2010-June 2011 time period, according to information on the SHA website.  These citations would have a net value of $20,912,080.00 if fully paid.  Some citations will go unpaid, however like Montgomery County they will also collect additional revenue from late and MVA flagging fees which will at least partially offset that.

The "10% rule" went into effect on October 1, 2009 when statewide speed cameras went into effect.  The attorney General had sent a letter of advice to Chevy Chase Village, stating the following:
"Thus, it is my view that, after costs of implementing and administering the system, any fund balance from fines remaining at the end of fiscal year 2010 (June 30, 2010) and each fiscal year thereafter that is in excess of 10% of the total revenues for a political subdivision, must be remitted to the comptroller for deposit to the general fund of the state.  It is further my view that any funds collected under a current speed monitoring system that are not spent or encumbered by the political subdivision by June 30, 2010 will be included in the balance remaining from the fines for the purpose of determining whether the balance is greater than 10% of the revenues of the political subdivision."


Despite this, the Comptroller reported that no money or information about speed camera revenues were collected from municipalities for FY2010 (July 1,2009-June30 2010), and was not able to provide a document explaining this apparent discrepancy.

Chevy Chase Village had a large amount of speed camera revenue prior to FY2010, as well as an approximately $3million dollar speed camera reserve fund which the AG's letter opined was also to be counted towards the total.  We asked the Comptroller's office to provide documentation for why no revenue information or payments were collected for the FY10 year and they were unable to provide any.  Several jurisdictions besides Chevy Chase had existing programs or started programs early in FY2010 which at least in theory could have reached the 10% budget threshold.

Under state law, municipalities and counties are only supposed to be spent on "public safety".  However the term is completely undefined under state law, and jurisdictions are permitted to supplant existing expenses previously paid for out of the general fund.  For all intents and purposes a jurisdiction can declare any amount of existing expenses .  We have previously documented how Chevy Chase Village has included items general operating expenses as well as items like copiers, Cable TV lines, and a Segway.  In their FY11 budget included additional items such as snow plows and sidewalk or road paving, on the grounds that there is some relationship to safety.

Prince Georges County Court Openly Presumes All Defendants Guilty

Prince George's County Courts have apparently now removed even the trappings of due process and the presumption of innocence from speed camera hearings.  On November 9th, Prince George's County Associate Judge Jean Baron made the statements that the court would not accept any evidence or arguments regarding the accuracy of the device, and that the only defense they would accept was that someone else was driving and to provide that person's identity.  The following opening statements were made by the judge to an entire room full of defendants in Forest Heights Speed Camera cases, before any cases were presented or any evidence or arguments heard:

"The only defense that the court is going to accept if you were not the driver of the vehicle, and you have the name and the address of the person who was driving, and you present that to the court under oath I will accept that as a defense.  Please don't tell me that you know you couldn't have been going that fast or there is something wrong with the equipment.  There is someone here from the jurisdiction who testifies that the equipment was calibrated and validated, or is "self calibrating", and then I'm not going to be able to accept that as a defense."

The statements were made less than two days after documents disclosed by the town of Cheverly were made public, about numerous technical problems they had experienced with the same type of speed cameras (made by Optotraffic, a division of Sigma Space Corporation) as the ones which issued the Forest Heights citations being contested.   The documented errors included an "invisible vehicle" traveling 76mph, a bike traveling 57mph, "unlikely" speed readings for "irregular shaped" vehicles and vehicles with ladder racks and trailers, and "false triggers" caused by moisture in the air.  The cameras Cheverly had been using had the same "self calibration" mechanism as the Forest Heights camera tickets being contested in the November 9th hearing, yet the documents did not state that the automatic calibration tests had failed when the errors occurred.  Cheverly and Optotraffic broke off their contract after the town raised the technical problems and Cheverly has since signed with a new vendor.  The contents of those documents supported claims that the Optotraffic cameras had produced significant number of errors, documented extensively on this site, while Optotraffic has flatly  denied they have experienced any errors.  Optotraffic cameras are also used by Prince George's County's new speed camera program and several other municipalities in Princec George's County.

Listen to the recording for yourself:

and decide whether a hearing held after statements such as the ones made on this day could even remotely be considered a fair, that it is possible the judge had not pre-judged every case that day.  And since she was so confident in what town officials would testify to and what the conclusion she would draw from that would be, should one not wonder what evidence or direction she had been given outside this courtroom setting, and don't the principals of our legal system require defendants be given access to that and have an opportunity to challenge it?

It is a sad sad day for Maryland drivers and for our Justice System.  I hate to be the bearer of  bad news, but it appears that all that stuff you believed in about "reasonable doubt" and the "presumption of innocence" are really just childish fantasies like the tooth fairy... not a fact on the ground for ordinary citizens.  When push comes to shove, the system will not suffer The People to interfere with their cash cow by contesting tickets or perhaps even proving the devices might be flawed.  This is How Justice Dies: with the Presumption of Guilt.

Note: StopBigBrotherMD.org does not believe this is reason to capitulate and stop contesting citations.  Citizens who believe they have received an unfair or incorrect ticket should contest it and insist as loudly as possible that they be provided real due process.  If the people meekly accept this, matters will only get worse.  Fighting back against an unjust system is your civic duty!!!

Red Light Cameras Ticket Stopped Cars

Cha-Ching!

Prince George's County Police are defending a policy of using red light cameras to ticket motorists who come to a full stop at intersections just past the white 'stop line'.

Nolan Church said he received a ticket there for running a red light, in a location where the stop line was three car lengths away from the intersection.  "I absolutely stopped. I was stopped."  County police respond that the stop line is placed where it is to leave space for emergency vehicles.  AAA Spokesman John Townsend disagreed "What the municipality did was to expand the crosswalk. To entrap and ensnare people."

Under Maryland law it is a technical violation of the law to come to stop at a red light past the stop line, even if the car does not enter the intersection or the crosswalk.  However in some cases the stop line is place several car lengths prior to the crosswalk, giving many drivers the impression that they can proceed farther.  In some cases motorists may wish to see into the intersection in order to make turns (for safety), or the driver may simply miscalculate their stopping distance.

Most people are unaware that at some intersections the large majority of red light camera citations are for these 'technical violations' which have almost no chance of causing an accident, rather than 'straight through' red light running -- until they receive such a ticket themselves.  Stop line violations can greatly outnumber actual red-light running violations, so ticketing for such offenses increases the profitability of a red light camera system, both for the municipalities and the contractors who are paid based on the number of citations.

In Maryland red light camera tickets typically carry a $75 fine, with an implied threat to increase the penalty to $100 if the violation is challenged, discouraging many from contesting tickets.  Some violations issued by municipalities such as New Carrolton, which have a policy of using cameras to issue stop line tickets, have been successfully challenged in court.

--------------
1/12/2012: Observe how this is part of a national trend, with red light cameras used to ticket motorists engaged in perfectly safe behavior: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3687.asp

Optotraffic Contract with Cheverly Canceled, Town Records Expose Camera Errors

Optotraffic's speed camera contract with the town of Cheverly was canceled in August of this year, and records released by the town in response to a public information act request reveal a variety of errors and technical issues with the Optotraffic cameras which the town had complained about.

In a July 26, 2011 letter to Mario Bohorquez, Chief Commercial Officer of Optotraffic (a Division of Sigma Space Corporation), the town administrator discussing a variety of errors which the company had been unable to satisfactorily explain or remedy.

------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing as a follow-up to my April letter and our subsequent meeting on May 4rth regarding various problems with your equipment and administrative issues.

Violations with tags visible in only one photo were an issue in April.

At the meeting, you indicated that these were false triggers that could have been caused by moisture in the air.  We note that if 90% of the photos collected were false triggers, then we were concerned about the accuracy of the remaining 10% where two tag images were captured.  You noted that the cameras were working correctly, however, you agreed to have the technicians look at the camera.  They did, and it was removed from service.  The cameras returned to service in a number of days later and was capturing photos of vehicles doing less than the posted speed limit, vehicles doing the speed limit and still vehicles in violation, but with only one tag image.
 

On July 21rst I was called to a meeting by your staff members to again discuss the situation.  Mickey was ill-prepared and had us all wait while he read the technical staff report provided by Ms. Anjenette Cramer, which he noted was very technical and could not be explained in laymen's terms.  He did state that there was nothing wrong with the camera and it was taken to download upgraded software.  We noted the capturing of speeds under the posted speed limit and he explained it as having been set low in the shot, but not reset when put back in service.  We noted that we were still getting one tag pictures for violators, this precluding us from issuing tickets in accordance with the state law.  He did not believe us and would not accept our statement unless he saw proof.  Not having it in hand the meeting was concluded until we could provide proof.  ENCLOSED is the proof.


Not only are the cameras still not functioning properly, they now are producing violations for invisible vehicles going 76 miles per hour (violation # 79) and bicycles going 38 and 57 miles per hour (violation #2790 & #2783) and now violations with just a part of a vehicle in only one photo.

Finally, we continue to get false speed readings for vehicles that have an irregular size such as buses and trucks with ladder racks.

Rather than have meeting to have Mickey tell us "that it’s technical" we would like you to have an explanation for the equipment problems provided to us in writing.  I look forward to hearing from you in the next 10 days."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The town did not release citation images, which are exempt from disclosure under the Public Information Act.  No written response from Optotraffic was included in the disclosure, if one was ever provided.

Shortly thereafter in August, with Cheverly officials apparently having lost faith in their company and hardware and had previously declared them to be "in breach of contract" in an April 21rst letter, Optotraffic sought to get ahead of the situation by exercising the option in the contract to terminate it (thus making it appear that the decision to do so was theirs).  At the same time Optotraffic widely distributing press releases declaring that it had "successfully accomplished its mission to support the Town of Cheverly in its efforts to reduce speeding".  The company even claimed that they had brought about a 96% reduction in speed violations, BUT FAILED TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE REDUCTION IN CITATIONS WAS DUE TO HARDWARE MALFUNCTIONS.  In fact this was noted in another document disclosed by the town "Finally, I would be remiss to not note that the reduction /elimination of the ticket volume in the month of July and August were a result of the malfunctioning of the camera, which was the topic of our discussion at our June 14th meeting and resulted in the removal and attempted repair of the camera.  The explanations from your staff of the calibration error codes, false positives, malfunctions due to moisture in the air, uploading of new software and the break down of the generator served to reduce the number of citable speeding violations."

Unfortunately, the Optotraffic press release was only the latest in a long string of deceptions by the company.  Optotraffic employees have been standing up before the public, elected officials, and the press stating that the company had never seen proof of any errors by their cameras.  Those statements do not seem to be true.

In addition to the errors, other documents describe how calibration tests were not working properly, with calibration logs not appearing in the system until days after they were supposed to have been performed.

Additional documents dating back to August 2010 show police voiding citations for vehicles with ladder racks or trailers under the apparent belief that the speed measurement was incorrect.  "Also, if ladders atop trucks fives a false reading do roof racks, ski rackes, etc, cause a similar false reading?  Such as the following events..." a Cheverly Police officer wrote to Optotraffic CFO Mario Bohorquez in an August 6 2010 email.  No response to that question from Optotraffic was included in any of the disclosed documents.
SEE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM CHEVERLY DISCLOSURE

(update 11/12/2011): Cheverly published a statement saying that it is "confident that all citations issued through its Speed Enforcement Program are accurate", stating that they had a strict standards for issuing citations "above and beyond the normal citation issuance process" and that all citations issued passed that review. 

We have reported extensively on the situation with Optotraffic cameras previously, including how some citizens in Cheverly had confronted the town council in the summer of 2010 about camera errors.  Other town residents had complained to town officials in private under the belief they had received citations with erroneous speed readings prior to the disclosure.

Reports of erroneous speed reading with large vehicles in other towns, like those described in the Cheverly documents, date back to summer of 2010 at the same time similar incidents had been reported elsewhere.  We have documented how errors have also been reported in College Park, Forest Heights, and several other towns.  Yet unfortunately, other local government clients chose to circle the wagons and deny the errors took place.  When defendants from those other towns go to court to challenge their tickets, representatives from those governments and Optotraffic have been standing up in court making claims about the accuracy and reliability of these machines and that they are operated and maintained properly (often without proof), and judges tend to believe those claims.  It seems reasonable to assume that innocent people may have been found guilty based on such testimony.

Cheverly has done the responsible thing, by admitting the problems they experienced and removing the cause of those problems (Optotraffic).  They should be commended for taking the risk and doing the right thing.  But other towns have not done so.  It is time for an independent investigation into Optotraffic's cameras, but more importantly into Optotraffic itself.  It is time for the public to find out whether other local governments have had similar issues, and who knew about these errors when Optotraffic was standing up before elected officials, the press, and in court, stating that they have had no errors.  It is time for other local governments who, unlike Cheverly, have obstructed public information act requests to keep the truth from the public (we will be placing a spotlight on THOSE local governments in the near future), to come clean and release ALL the records they have pertaining to errors with these devices.  And perhaps it is time to investigate whether some obstructions and deceptions may in fact constitute criminal violations of the law.

We will have MUCH more on this story.  Please come back soon.

Additional Coverage:
  Washington Examiner
  Washington Times
  WJLA
  

DC Council Members Propose Lowering Speed Limits to 15mph

DC Carpoolers May Soon Really be Slugging it to Work

Two DC council members have proposed legislation to lower speed limits on numerous residential streets in the District from 25mph to 15mph.  According to WTOP, Council Members Muriel Bowser and Tommy Wells say their proposal would make streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. "Dialing back our speed 10, even 15 miles per hour while we're on neighborhood streets, it literally adds up to second, maybe a minute or two," Miller says. "Isn't the safety of our children and our seniors and everybody worth a couple of minutes of driving safely?"

DC has one of the most extensive photo enforcement programs in the nation, bringing in $40.7million in speed camera revenue in FY2010.  Unlike Maryland, there are no specific restrictions on where cameras can be placed, and no specific 'threshhold' above the speed limit when tickets can be issued.  Were the proposal to go forwards, there would be no legal reason the District could not deploy speed cameras to ticket previously law-abiding drivers for traveling at breakneck speeds in the range of 16-20mph.

In addition, since driving even 1mph over the speed limit is a technical violation of the law, a driver recklessly traveling over 15mph could be legally be pulled over by police and ticketed.  Given that most cars can exceed 15mph without even touching the gas pedal, nearly every driver would end up exceeding 15mph at some point.  From a civil liberties perspective DC would be giving police probable cause to stop any driver at almost any time, charge them with a traffic violation, and thereby potentially subject their vehicles to a search as well.

The proposal is likely based on the common misconception that drivers always drive 5-10mph over the speed limit regardless of what it is set at.  However numerous studies have shown that this is not the case: the reality is that most drivers travel at what they believe is the safe speed for conditions, that lowering (or raising) speed limits has little overall effect on traffic accident rates, and that the primary affect in lowering speed limits is to reduce compliance and increase the public's contempt for the law (See studies listed on the NMA's website).  If DC has such contempt for their own residents that they wish to turn reasonable safe drivers into lawbreakers and encourage the belief that speed limits are unreasonable and not set by any rational standard, by all means set the speed limit to 15mph.

Study Cautions on Privatizing Law Enforcement

A new study by a pro-consumer group says the practice of privatizing law enforcement of traffic violations may be putting profits ahead of safety and accuracy. An estimated 60 million Americans live in communities where the are monitored by automated ticketing machines, according to the study by the US Public Research Group (US PIRG), a left-leaning public interest group.

"Pitfalls can arise when contracts encourage vendors to treat automated traffic enforcement systems as a profit center: by maximizing the number of tickets written, regardless of the impact on public safety; by limiting the ability of governments to set traffic safety policies according to community needs; or by constraining the ability of cities to terminate contracts early in the event that automated enforcement systems are rejected by the electorate or fail to meet safety goals," the study explained.

The report points out how most contract arrangements provide incentives to contractors which could compromise the integrity of the system:

"Contracts between private camera vendors and cities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety.", "The most problematic contracts require cities to share revenue with the camera vendor on a per-ticket basis or through other formulas as a percentage of revenue. In other words, the more tickets a camera system issues, the more profit the vendor collects."

In Maryland, state law was supposed to forbid per-ticket contracts, by including the following : ""If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid."  However this provision has been effectively circumvented in nearly every jurisdiction in the state, starting with Montgomery County, and soon followed by similar per-ticket contracts in Baltimore City, Forest Heights, Brentwood, Mount Rainier, College Park, New Carrollton, Riverdale Park, Frederick City, Prince George's County, and many others.  In nearly every case the vendor provides, installs/deploys, and maintains the machines, then processes violations, mails violations, and collects payments.  In some cases vendors have also provided the traffic surveys used to determine where cameras should be placed.   Also, in many cases the vendor also schedules court hearings.  Failure of one vendor to provide timely hearings created situations in Forest Heights where drivers needed to wait OVER A YEAR to receive hearings, by which time the "speed monitoring system operator" who signed the logs, was no longer available to testify about an apparent possible failure to perform the required tests or what appeared to be falsification of evidence --  the testimony of a company representative was accepted instead. 

The study also cautions how "The privatized traffic law enforcement industry has amassed significant political clout that it uses to shape traffic safety nationwide.".  This has manifested itself in Maryland in the form of camera companies lobbying for statewide speed cameras, treating lawmakers to expensive steak dinners, and even one company creating "Astroturf sites" in Baltimore County and Howard County to promote the expansion of speed cameras there. Another concern would be that contracts might be awarded to companies which have made substantial campaign contributions.

Unlike some other studies supporting speed cameras, studies funded by camera companies or other entities which benefit financially from photo enforcement, USPIRG does not have a specific financial interest in photo enforcement one way or the other. 
 
One issue mentioned in the report which we would add is the loss of accountability and transparency, particularly that placement of responsibility in the hands of a private company also places certain records out of the reach of states' open records laws.

"Unlike a public entity, a private operator is not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the public. It may also seek to prevent public scrutiny by declaring certain information to be a “proprietary business secret.” This should not be allowed."

StopBigBrotherMD.org has witnessed the effect of this in several cases where local governments have claimed that records pertaining to the operation or technical characteristics of speed cameras were in the hands of the contractor rather than the police.  The vendor would then claim that they cannot release the documents, effectively denying a defendant access to evidence they were seeking for their legal defense.  In some cases even documents which by their nature must have been in the hands of the local government which is claimed to "operate" the devices, rather than a contractor which the police claim do not operate the devices, were effectively denied in this way.

Read FULL STUDY

More Information on:

                   U.S.PIRG Website                   

                   TheNewsPaper.com

                   USA Today
                   Washington Post

State Looks to Solve Budget Woes on Backs of Motorists

Faced with yet another looming budget shortfall, the state of Maryland believes it has found a panacea which will solve all its money problems: tax motorists.

The state legislature is set to consider increasing the state's gas tax by 15 cents per gallon in (a 63.8% increase over the current rate of 23.5 cents per gallon).  In addition to a gas tax hike, the proposal would include increasing the vehicle registration fees by 50%, increasing the titling fees from 6% to 6.5%, and doubling the cost of vehicle emissions inspections.

State Senate President Mike Miller has made clear his own intention to ram though a gas tax hike regardless of any opposition, "There's going to be a gas tax." Miller told the Maryland Chamber of Commerce in blunt terms, "It is going to have to get done now."

Supporters of the proposal stated that the revenue is needed, and that it is necessary to shore up the Transportation Trust Fund in order to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure.  Critics claimed that the state has been raiding the Transportation Trust Fund for years in order to support non-transportation projects.

These increase come after the state decided to substantially raise most tolls in the state, with the new rates going into effect November 1.  As an example, the cash toll rate for the Bay Bridge will be rising from $2.50 to $4, a 60% increase.  The toll at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (I-95) and Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge (US 40) will increase from $.80 to $1.50, an 87.5% increase.

DHS Doesn't Want Their Plates Photographed

You have probably all seen or heard about the license plate covers which are supposed to shield your plate number from being photographed by speed and red light cameras.  It appears that some police vehicles are equipt with such plate covers, including one FPS(Federal Protective Services, a component of the Department of Homeland Security) vehicle which was photographed in Montgomery County Maryland.

 If you enlarge the image, you can see the plate numbers are actually pretty much legible, not a good indication of the effectiveness of the device.  However another photo taken at the same time which was in somewhat poorer focus showed the characters on the plate at least partially obscured.

So perhaps they are 50% effective.  However that's not a particularly good ratio, given that the devices are illegal in Maryland.  In Maryland a "registration plate cover" is defined as  "any tinted, colored, painted, marked, clear, or illuminated object that is designed to:
(1) Cover any of the characters of a vehicle’s registration plate; or
(2) Distort a recorded image of any of the characters of a vehicle’s registration plate recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system under § 21-202.1 of this article."
and having one on your plate carries a $60 fine. In Virginia, the devices could run you up to a $200 fine, and in DC the maximum fine would be a whopping $500.

In 2005 WTOP reported how some local DC police vehicles had been found with the plate covers, and police responded that they would inform the officers to remove the covers from their plates.  In fact in DC city officials have gone so far as to claim even a license plate frame is illegal if it covers the "Taxation Without Representation" slogan on the plates.

Of course the DHS does not run speed or red light cameras the way local police in Maryland and DC do.  They only have mobile vans which can look inside your car and covertly scan people in crowds.

PG County Cameras Issue over $500,000 worth of tickets in first month

The Washington Examiner has reported that Prince George's County's 14 new camera sites have issued $527,000 (13,173 citations) in the first month of their program.  The article compares this to the early phases of Montgomery County's program, which issued 40,000 citations in the first six months.  The county plans to expand the program to a total of 72 sites, just for starters.

The revenue is divided between the county and the contractor, Optotraffic, who receives a 37% cut of every citation.  The per-ticket contract is despite a provision of state law which reads "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid.".  That provision which has been essentially nullified and is being ignored by almost every speed camera program in the state, simply by claiming that the contractor  (who maintains and substantially controls all the cameras) does not 'operate' the devices.  The first of many restrictions in the law to be circumvented, ignored, or otherwise rendered meaningless.

The county's camera vendor, Optotraffic, has been the target of criticism over claims of inaccuracies in their hardware as well as other issues.  The county claims that their cameras are calibrated regularly (using tests which this site has demonstrated to be meaningless and which were not diligently followed by local governments making the same claims), and that citations are all inspected by police.  However despite these claimed inspections in the first week the program went live the county's cameras erroneously issued citations on a weekend when the devices are legally required to be switched off, with a county spokesperson claiming they were 'improperly programmed by the vendor'. 

PG County's New Speed Camera Issues Erroneous Tickets

After only a few days of issuing tickets, officials in Prince George;s County have already reported their first erroneous speed camera citations.  PG County reported that a speed camera located along the 6800-7800 block of High Bridge Road in Bowie sent out 18 erroneous citations.  Police stated that the problem was not due to a speed measurement error but rather because the device was improperly configured to issue citations on a Sunday.  Under Maryland law 'school zone' speed cameras are authorized to issued tickets M-Fri. (Note: Cameras in Montgomery County and those used in SHA workzones are NOT restricted to week days).

A police spokesperson stated to NBC news 4 "On this particular Sunday, Sunday September 25th there were 18 citations issued incorrectly.  We then reviewed all of them.  We got in touch with the individual drivers, one of them had already paid.  They will be reimbursed.  The rest had their tickets waived".

Under state law, all citations are supposedly inspected and approved by a police officer BEFORE tickets are issued, and all citations contain an (electronically imprinted) signature affirming this.  In the case of these citations apparently did not include checking the date of the violation.  Also under state law speed cameras are supposed to be inspected by a county employee 'daily' who signs a 'daily setup log' to that effect... apparently in this case that inspection did not include looking at a calendar to find out what day of the week it was. The county's speed cameras are provided by their vendor, Optotraffic(a division of Sigma Space Corporation), who maintains the cameras in exchange for a cut of the speed camera revenue from each ticket.

According to NBC News 4, PG County police stated that this was an isolated problem with this one speed camera "improperly programmed by the vendor".  However a spokesperson from AAA Mid Atlantic referred to the many other complains about erroneous citations issued by Optotraffic cameras in the past, complaints which have been disregarded by county officials.

We have previously reported how some municipalities using Optotraffic cameras appear to have taken shortcuts in the operation of their cameras, filling in logs on days operators were apparently not working.  StopBigBrotherMD.org has also previously argued that if certain claims by Optotraffic and county officials are taken at face value, then no meaningful inspection of citations could possibly be taking place.

National Camera News:

Albuquerque, New Mexico has joined the list of communities which has rejected photo enforcement at the ballot box.  In an October 4rth vote, 54% of the 40,000 people voting in the referendum said "NO" to the question asking "Shall the Albuquerque City Council continue authorizing the 'safe traffic operations program,' commonly called the 'red light camera program'?"

The Albuquerque measure was placed on the ballot by a .  The company which runs the red light camera program on the other hand invented a grass roots "Astroturf" campaign supporting the camera program, with Redflex spending $142,050 on a group(the group's entire budget) called "SafeRoads Albuquerque" which sent out mass mailings designed to look like they came from a 'Grass roots' organization. Redflex reportedly changed the name of the group to reveal its relationship to the organization after it was threatened with an ethics complaint.

Read Full Story>>