In 2006, the
Some reasons why many oppose speed cameras include:
- The right to face your accuser in court and cross examine witnesses is guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights. Speed cameras deny you this right because the accuser is a machine.
- Speed cameras are a form of mass surveillance over ordinary drivers. The government is forbidden from engaging in sweeping surveillance systems without warrants to look for offenders of crimes. Only DRIVERS, rather than career criminals, are currently considered bad enough by the state legislature to justify such a system. It is possible that the cameras, or the data they collect, could one day be used for purposes other than speed enforcement, which may already be happening.
- The lack of human oversight means that no one person will be held accountable if there are widespread errors.
- Since tickets are received weeks later, the accused has a very limited ability to gather evidence in their defense. This is particularly true of mobile cameras which may no longer be in the same location, or 'workzone cameras' where the location may have been substantially changed by the time the defendant becomes aware of the alleged offense.
- Tickets are issued to the owner of the vehicle even if they are not the driver. Fully a third of speed camera tickets are going to people who did not in fact commit the offense because someone else was driving at the time. The burden of proof is on the owner to identify the driver and give their drivers license number to the court.
- Ticket Recipients who need to challenge citations have their cases heard in an unfair court proceeding known as 'speed camera day' where 50 or more defendants have their cases heard in assembly line manner. Because the burden of proof for speed camera tickets has been lowered below that of a criminal case, below even ordinary traffic violations, defendants are essentially 'guilty until proven innocent'. Judges have even told defendants things like 'the only acceptable "not guilty" plea was if someone else had been driving their car at the time the ticket was issued, and to present that driver." The government is free to present evidence without supporting witnesses, and defendants are found guilty even when they have proven that required operating procedures were not followed. Not only does this set a horrible legal precedent, and risk finding innocent people guilty, but it gives no incentive for the government agencies which are enforcing the law to obey the law themselves.
- The safety benefits of automated traffic enforcement systems have been mixed. Red light cameras have actually been proven to INCREASE accidents . One study in the UK have shown that other forms of speed control, such as speed bumps and speed indicator signs are much more effective at reducing accidents. Another
In one case a Montgomery County town was found to have made claims about reductions in accidents which were found to be false when compared to their own monthly police reports.
- There are other (non-Orwellian) ways to fight speeding that are every bit as effective if not more so than speed cameras.
- Speed cameras do not remove the worst drivers from the roads the way a police officer can. Drunk drivers or a reckless criminal in a stolen vehicle, who might pose an immediate risk to pedestrians and other motorists, could ignore a speed camera completely. And since the current system issues no points for citations, a wealthy but extremely bad driver can receive dozens of speed camera tickets without losing their license, if they pay the fines.
- Speed cameras encourage erratic driving behavior. Drivers slow down as they approach the camera sites, then accelerate after they pass them. Cameras make some already safe drivers nervous. And enforcement which is too strict could have unintended consequences such as causing drivers to spend too much time looking at their speedometers rather than at the road.
- There have been many proven cases of speed cameras issuing tickets in error, in Arizona, New Mexico, the UK(1, 2, 3, 4), Australia. Montgomery County speed cameras have been shown to produce errors as well. Even if driver believes they are innocent would need to spend days fighting one $40 ticket in court, and would probably not find it worthwhile to do so except as a matter of principle.
- The speed cameras are NOT operated by sworn police officers. Instead this is outsourced to a private company. Under Montgomery county's contract ACS receives a $16.25 per ticket commission from these cameras, despite the fact that this violates a provision of state law intended to forbid paying contractors based on the number of citations issued or paid. For a long time the county refused requests to release the full details of their contract with ACS to the public. Now almost all the other speed camera programs starting up in the state use similar arrangements. Per ticket commissions could encourage the contractor to cheat in order to maximize the number of tickets rather than safety, operate inaccurate cameras, or create barriers to legitimate ticket challenges. Essentially the contractor which generates the evidence used in court cases gets paid only if the defendant is found guilty, a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, the fact that local governments have circumvented this part of the law simply to guarantee a revenue stream brings into question whether ANY limitations will be respected.
- These cameras are about REVENUE. Some local governments see them as a way to make big money off of passing motorists who do not know the camera locations the way local drivers do. Washington DC's speed and red light camera systems have issued 2,952,333 tickets worth $224 million as of July 31 2007. Most of that money has come from Maryland residents. At least one county executive now openly admits that the cameras are 'a tax'.
- Speed Cameras are magnets for corruption. Speed Camera Contractors lobbied heavily for statewide speed cameras, even buying lawmakers steak dinners. Local governments have written funds into their budgets before camera locations were even selected. One town was found to have written their contract in such a way as to require the contractor to generate a profit. Other localities have bypassed restrictions on the use of funds. Many towns and cities in Maryland have even started creating new school zones solely for the purpose of deploying speed cameras, in one case even trying to lower speed limits just so they could issue more tickets. The desire for more public funds at any cost ignores the fact that using law enforcement for revenue generation is harmful to our justice system, creating a conflict of interest by the state against the accused. Future administrations may be encouraged to use overbearing tactics to increase revenues -- such as concealed cameras, deliberately lowering speed limits, deceptive or inadequate signs, or cameras placed immediately after the sign reducing the speed limit.
- Because of their revenue potential, speed cameras are used as a heavy handed substitute for sound engineering approaches which can be more effective than speed cameras at reducing drivers speeds.
- Speed cameras tend to encourage local governments to set speed limits artificially low to increase revenues INSTEAD OF basing them on the standard traffic engineering practices. An example would be one camera in the City of Gaithersburg where, at the request of a ticket recipient, the SHA conducted a traffic study and concluded the 30mph speed limit was set 10mph too low, stating "Observations of the [speed] camera's impacts to traffic noted that motorists would brake significantly at each camera location, followed by accelerating immediately afterwards. This effect was most pronounced at the southbound camera, where motorists were observed frequently bunching together at the camera position. Given the recent installation of the cameras, quantifiable safety data is not yet available; but the current conditions may pose a more significant risk for rear-end and sideswipe conditions and, with speeds increasing immediately beyond the cameras, may not be achieving the desired safety benefits." Instead of accepting the SHA's judgement however, the city requested that the 30mph limit zone be EXTENDED to cover another portion of roadway, to southwards a point which happened to be just below camera site with a 35mph limit.
- Speed cameras can contribute to traffic congestion. Cameras are typically placed without first performing a traffic study intended to confirm the speed limit and determine the effect on traffic patterns. the only study performed is typically done by camera vendor,s who get a cut of each ticket, to determine whether or not the site will make money. The fact that cameras are used to enforce speed limits much lower than standard traffic engineering practices would dictate creates a situation where drivers to slow down to well below the speed limit for the 100 yards near speed camera sites before speeding up again, a fact which is easily observable at many camera sites. In some locations in Montgomery County this contributes to traffic backups which dissipate immediately after the cameras. Montgomery County currently has the 4rth worst traffic congestion in the country and is well on its way to #1.
- The cameras Maryland has now are merely a "special introductory offer" which is NOTHING compared to what we will have in 4 or 5 years if left unchecked. Maryland's current system is actually very modest compared to systems in use in the UK, Arizona, and some other places. However, the fact that the state already tried to remove many restrictions on the system, and that local governments have already tried to interpret away provisions in the law, along with the revenue potential, makes it clear that the system will become much larger and more invasive in the future if it is left unchallenged. In fact speed cameras themselves are only the tip of the iceberg, some local officials have gone so far as to seriously propose mandating the installation of GPS tracking systems into every car so that they can tax you for every mile you drive. There is no limit to how far some would go to restrict your driving freedom and your legal rights in order to more easily extract money from you.
- Even if the roads really ARE safer in Nineteen Eighty Four, we still don't want to live there!
