Baltimore City is promising refunds after admitting one of its speed cameras has been snapping violators in error.

Brian Struckmeier, of Elkridge, says he was caught by a speed camera in the 2200 block of West Cold Spring Lane about three weeks ago.

After receiving the citation in the mail, Struckmeier paid a $40 fine for driving 44 mph in a posted 30 mph zone.

Soon after paying the ticket, Struckmeier realized a discrepancy.

The posted speed limit is 30 mph for traffic going westbound on that stretch of Cold Spring Lane.

But Struckmeier was traveling eastbound where the speed limit is 35 mph, and the speed camera ticketed him as if he was traveling in the 30 mph zone.

The city’s Department of Transportation said in a statement Tuesday that the citations were issued in error and those who’ve already paid fines will receive notifications of dismissals and a refund.

In 2002, police in the city of Detroit gave out a total of 126,007 traffic tickets. Last year, the number of tickets grew to over 245,000 – a 94% jump. The increase was even larger in small towns like Plymouth which saw the number of tickets go up from 440 to 2,500 — up 480 percent — over the same amount of time. According to Detroit area police the reason for the increase is dwindling property tax revenue. That lack of property tax revenue has forced local governments in Michigan to use average citizen drivers to fill the coffers. You might call it a new, “random driving tax.”

“When I first started in this job thirty years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement,” Utica Police Chief Michael Reaves told the Detroit News. “But if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues. That’s just the reality nowadays.”

The National Motorists Association pointed to Detroit suburbs as home to some of the worst speed traps in the entire country. Upwards of 18 jurisdictions in the area reported an increase in ticketing of more than fifty percent.

“When elected officials say, ‘We need more money,’ they can’t look to the department of public works to raise revenues, so where do they find it? Police departments,” Police Officers Association of Michigan President James Tagnanelli told the News.

“I’ve spent eight years in traffic services, and I was a crash reconstructionist for five years before that,” Michigan State Police Lieutenant Gary Megge told the News. “So I’ve seen my share of fatal wrecks, and I can tell you: Deaths are not caused by speeding. They’re caused by drinking, drugs and inattentiveness. The old adage that speed kills just isn’t realistic. The safest speed is the speed that is correct for that roadway at a given time. A lot of speed limits are set artificially low.”

The Michigan State Police promotes setting limits according to the 85th percentile rule. This widely used principle is used to determine a practical speed limit by measuring how fast the vast majority of traffic, 85 percent, travel in safety.

“It just doesn’t seem right to me that we would enforce a law where 90-98 percent of the people are in violation of it,” Lieutenant Megge told the News. “It’s not the way we should do business in this country.”

Figures from the Montgomery Police Department, show a whopping $15 million generated in revenue during the current fiscal year, equating to around $1.5 million each month.

At an average of $40 a ticket, that means 37,500 speed camera citations per month are being paid to the Montgomery County.

Analyzing this further, the 60 Montgomery County’s speed cameras are pulling in $53,560 per day in fines, and this number is expected to climb further

“What we typically see is a spike in the number of fines around a new camera at the beginning and then it slows down,” says Lt. Paul Starks with Montgomery County Police.

“You also have to remember that these cameras are handing out $40 fines and no points (on your license). If you were to get pulled over by an officer for speeding, it would be $90 and two points.”

Sounds like a “padding” of the system. One that has grown from $106,000 from the first month the program began to $1.5 million this month

You may already have seen an ominous looking radar and camera perched atop a traffic light in your neighborhood. And almost all drivers have seen a patrol car cruising a freeway looking for speeders, or a law-enforcement officer standing at the side of a road wielding a radar gun.

But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states.

Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way? We take a look.

Sponsoring legislation in Maryland

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signed into law on May 19 Senate Bill 277, allowing the use of speed cameras in highway work zones and within a half-mile radius of schools, which means that they can be placed on freeways under these conditions.

Maryland is only the second state behind Arizona to codify the use of freeway speed cameras into law. Hawaii piloted a program but dropped it, and similar programs near San Jose, California, and in southern Florida were dismantled after they were found to be operating outside of state law. Maryland’s law takes effect on October 1.

“Maryland is in a unique position,” said Sean Adamec, the governor’s spokesman said.

“A pilot program in Montgomery shows it worked; it lowered incidences of fatalities, crashing and speeding and made neighborhoods safer. It’s safer for kids, road workers and it’s been shown to work based on evidence. The point of them isn’t to raise money but to catch speeders and that in turn makes neighborhoods safer.

“We wouldn’t propose any tax on motorists traveling at safe speeds. If it was revenue rising we would’ve done it years ago, [but cameras] slow people down so they don’t need to levy so many fines. Of course there is a financial impact to make roads safer with less fatalities, but in the end you can’t put a price on the life of a child,” said Adamec.

Fighting legislation in Arizona

Sam Crump, an Arizona assemblyman who is opposed to the speed cameras and has backed legislation to have them removed from the state’s freeways in 2010, says the main backing for speed cameras within Arizona has come from “senior citizens groups,” but there has been a surprising agreement between his core conservative followers and college students over privacy concerns.

“It’s been the subject of some debate since we introduced it and some legislators have been surprised by the controversy,” Crump said. “We expect it to come up for a vote in the next couple weeks. If it fails, we’ll say more power to the people. But every time [a freeway speed-camera initiative] has been up for a vote in any place it has failed.”

Arizona’s former governor, Janet Napolitano, predicted Arizona’s freeway camera system would generate $90 million in profit for the state in 2009, and $34 million for the private company that runs it. Crump, however says the system’s total profit has been in the range of “$20 to $25 million a year,” which leads him to suggest that speed camera detractors who say it’s only a device to make money could be wrong.

“I caution people that it really is technology in the hands of Big Brother,” Crump said. “We’ve got 70 or so [freeway speed cameras] right now, and they’re looking at [a total of] 200.”

Safety at issue

Russ Rader, at the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, says that, outside of freeways, speed cameras are used in 48 communities nationwide, including in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and Washington DC. The group’s research shows that photo enforcement “works to slow drivers down. Cameras do what police officers can’t — enforce speed limit laws 24/7. Speeding is a major safety problem on our roads. It contributes to one-third of all crash deaths.”

The IIHS found that speed cameras “can substantially reduce speeding on a wide range of roadway types. Six months after implementation of speed cameras on residential streets and school zones in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2007, the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by about 70 percent. Implementation of a 9-month pilot program using fixed speed cameras on a busy urban freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona, in 2006 was associated with up to a 95 percent decrease in the odds that drivers would travel more than 10 mph above the posted 65 mph speed limit.”

“The main argument opponents use against camera enforcement is that it can be a cash cow for local governments,” Rader said.

“If you don’t like the idea of sending revenue to your local government, don’t break the law. It’s hardly unreasonable to expect drivers to stay within 10 mph of the speed limit. I have an elementary school in my neighborhood, which is bisected by a major commuter road where drivers regularly speed like banshees. I want those drivers ticketed. Period. There aren’t enough police officers to do that everywhere.”

Nationwide rollout?

Newspaper.com’s Richard Diamond, an opponent of speed cameras, says it’s hard at times to weigh which “side” — opponents of the cameras, or their detractors — is “winning.”

“There are places where cameras are advancing, and places where they’re retreating,” said Diamond. “For politicians, the desire is on increase, but whether they can get away with it, that level has gone down.”

He says lawmakers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Montana and Mississippi failed to get a freeway speed camera measure onto a ballot, but points to Maryland as an example of lawmakers’ success. He says 13 states have specific laws banning freeway cameras, but he sees a natural progression from states using red-light cameras to using freeway speed cameras.

“The biggest issue opponents have is it creates a legal system where you’re presumed guilty without a trial,” Diamond said. “If a database says you’re a criminal, you are. Once you let in the cameras it opens the door that this is OK.”

He says protesting freeway speed cameras can be an arduous task.

“Somebody willing to go to the effort for 30 days and grab 20,000 signatures takes dedication.”

Grassroots activism

Todd Kandaris, at Camerafraud.com says his Arizona-based group’s campaign against freeway cameras started late in 2008 and his group’s member numbers have swelled from 100 to about 1500. He says the group works to bring attention to the issue through protests and publicity stunts.

“Early on we concentrated on raising awareness and getting attention, [with] groups of people getting out there and protesting,” said Kandaris. “We find that highway overpasses work well. Thousands [of motorists] go by in a given hour, and [it gets] lots of media attention. We demo’d in front of the manufacturer’s headquarters. Earlier this year we introduced a citizen’s initiative with the secretary of state, attempting to put the issue on the ballot, to let citizens vote on it in 2010.”

He says the group must collect more than 150,000 signatures by July 2010 to place the issue on the statewide ballot, and is working with groups in Virginia, Louisiana, D.C., Texas and Ohio. “Cameras have never withstood a vote of the public, which tells you this is a device used by politicians and corporations to make money. It’s not like we’re a bunch of evil speeding people, we want traffic control as much as everyone else. We just think this is just a device to bilk money out of the public.”

Legal standpoint

Sherman Ellison, a California lawyer who fights regular speeding and traffic tickets, says that a key legal issue is the data-gathering system by which driver information is collected by companies and then distributed to law-enforcement agencies, who then issue the citation to the car’s driver, or owner (which varies by state).

“If you were driving down the street and ran a red light and an officer pulled you over he’d write a ticket for failing to stop,” Ellison said. “He would have visually observed [the offense] and you’d either plead or go to trial, where you’d be able to ask him for proof of that. In the photo context there is no officer, it’s just a camera connected to a laptop, and that system sends that information to a company, whether that’s Redflex or another, that sends data digitally to the contractor.

“The difficulty in this process is they will crop or enhance these photos or whatever they feel they have to do, for the determination of whether they broke the law. I demand that they prove this is a true and correct photograph and rarely they’ll go through that process.”

Redflex responds

Cristine Weeks, a spokeswoman for Redflex, an Australian company headquartered near Phoenix that works in tandem with seven other vendors enforcing speed limits nationwide and operates Arizona’s freeway speed-camera system, says several studies — including those of the IIHS, Arizona State University and the Arizona Department of Transportation — have demonstrated camera “efficacy and accident reductions.”

She says the Redflex infrastructure was set up without any additional taxpayer funds and that the company contracts with various state and city departments in the same way as a waste-management company would. The company reported $88.2 million in revenue for its global operations in 2008 — and an annual increase of 43 percent in U.S. traffic revenues from $44.3 million to $63.3 million — and an operating profit of $10.6 million.

She says the company’s data-gathering process involves analyzing digital still images as well as streaming video, and that the company performs a quality check of any images before sending them to law-enforcement officers, who review all of the evidence before authorizing any citation.

“Nothing is changed on the image. They are not ‘Photoshopped,’” Weeks said. “It is impossible to ‘shop in a light system. In the early days it was a question many wanted to know. [But] the agencies are walked through to see how the process works, and a violator can view their own video.”

She says radars similar to mobile-police devices measure a motorist’s time over distance and any breach of the speed limit results in a camera image of the front of the car –including the driver, and the car’s rear license plate. She says although Arizona freeway drivers are not levied points on their license for any breach of the law, that as drivers are forced to pay more fines, they become “more aware” of their driving patterns, and modify their driving accordingly.

When asked if she thinks a nationwide system of freeway speed cameras is likely, Weeks offers a cryptic response: “I think, you know, take a look at western Europe, which is 10 to 15 years ahead of U.S. applications.”

The Tennessee General Assembly on Tuesday gave final approval to legislation authorizing the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and Tennessee Highway Patrol to ticket motorists on interstate freeway work zones using automated cameras. Although many members in the House and Senate expressed strong opposition to the concept of photo enforcement, the authorization measure passed by an overwhelmingly 80 to 10 margin in the House and 28 to 0 in the Senate. The support was due in no small part to the bill’s wording, which granted authority to deploy cameras in the guise of restricting them. House Bill 1202 states . . .

No surveillance cameras shall be permitted on federal interstate highways except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when employees of the department or construction workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that such cameras shall be operated only by a state entity.

The bill’s main sponsors, state Senator Tim Burchett (R-Knoxville) and state Representative Joe McCord (R-Maryville) both claimed to be personally opposed to the use of cameras. They also insisted that this bill was the best “limitation” that could be made under the political circumstances. The bottom line, however, is that as soon as Governor Phil Bredesen (D) signs the bill into law, TDOT and the state police will be free to deploy cameras—under one condition.

“They can’t have the cameras in work zones unless it’s a real work zone where people are working,” Burchett said.

The bill serves no purpose as a limitation on local jurisdictions because no local authorities use photo radar on interstates. A secondary provision in the legislation mandating the use of warning signs likewise will make no change in current practice.

“According to TDOT and the Department of Safety, surveillance cameras are not currently used on interstates,” the legislature’s analysis of the bill states. “Most local governments that utilize cameras already post signs.”

Burchett used the same deceptive tactic last year of “banning” practices that did not exist in order to give local jurisdictions authority to deploy red light cameras and speed cameras throughout the state. The bill became law on July 1, 2008. In House debate on freeway cameras Monday, the bill’s House sponsor claimed that there were not enough votes to ban speed cameras.

“If it were up to me, I would like to see an outright ban of these cameras used in this state,” Representative McCord said. “In order to get this bill out of committee . . . we made an agreement that unless the chairman of the subcommittee was comfortable with those that we would let no amendments go on because there is going to be a study committee this summer to deal with all these issues.”

Subcommittee Chairman Vince Dean (R-East Ridge) made it very clear where he stood on speed cameras as he struck down an amendment by Representative Chad Faulkner (R-Luttrell) that would have imposed a true ban on all forms of photo ticketing.

“This particular amendment would hit hard in a section in my town where speed cameras have actually saved lives,” Dean said. “We have documented proof to show where they have saved lives. But I promise you that we will look at this in our study this summer.”

Representative Joe Towns (D-Memphis) was the only member to note something out of place about McCord description of what was going on.

“Sponsor, first thing, I’d like for you to speak up a bit,” Towns said. “It’s almost like you’re trying to hide something from me…. What are you all going to be studying in the summer? You’re touting it as if it’s actually deal with one of our colleague’s questions that was posed earlier. What is going to come out of the summer study?”

McCord responded that the study would open the first public debate on the issue of photo enforcement, even though cameras have been in use for several years.

Article Excerpt:
Tennessee General Assembly
HOUSE BILL 1202
By McCord

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 6; Title 7 and Title 55, relative to surveillance cameras installed to enforce or monitor traffic laws.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198, is amended by adding a new subsection thereto, as follows:
(e) No surveillance cameras shall be permitted on federal interstate highways except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when employees of the department or construction workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that such cameras shall be operated only by a state entity.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198, is amended by adding the following language as new subsection (c) and by redesignating the present language accordingly:
(c) Effective July 1, 2009, a state agency or political subdivision of the state that installs, owns, operates, or maintains a traffic-control signal light located in an intersection that employs a surveillance camera for the enforcement or monitoring of traffic violations shall ensure that:
(1) The surveillance camera does not identify as a violation of § 55-8-110(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of such provision, any vehicle which legally entered the intersection during the green or yellow intervals in accordance with § 55-8-110(a)(1) and (2); and
(2) Appropriate signage is located not less than five hundred feet (500′) but not more than one thousand feet (1,000′) in advance of the intersection informing drivers as to the presence of surveillance cameras at the approaching intersection.

If the state agency or political division of the state violates the provisions of this
subsection, then any traffic citation based solely on evidence generated by the surveillance camera shall be deemed to be invalid.

SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Chevy Chase Village has claimed incredible safety results from their cameras. And I mean literally incredible. CCV officials told the Gazette that “Collisions in the village are down 70 to 80 percent”. They have repeated similar claims to the press many times. “Where we used to average 12 to 14 collisions a month on Connecticut Avenue, we are now averaging about 3 or 4″.

The problem is that the Village’s own police reports, which report the number of accidents they responded to, do not uphold these claims. We examined the monthly police reports posted to Chevy Chase Village’s website for a period of time before the speed cameras were introduced to the latest 12 month period of time
Before Cameras
Month : #Accidents Reported
Mar2006 : 10
Apr2006 : 14
May2006 : 9
Jun2006 : 12
Jul2006 : 14
Aug2006 : 12
Sep2006 : 11
Oct2006 : 18
Nov2006 : 10
Dec2006 : 14
Jan2007 : 3
Average : 11.545

After Cameras
Month : #Accidents Reported
May2008 : 16
Jun2008 : 7
Jul2008 : 10
Aug2008 : 10
Sep2008 : 10
Oct2008 : 10
Nov2008 : 17
Dec2008 : 16
Jan2009 : 8
Feb2009 : 8
Mar2009 : 13
Apr2009 : 17
Average : 11.833

The average monthly number of accidents reported by Chevy Chase Village police for these periods of time were actually slightly greater now than before the cameras were introduced. Note that these numbers were for all of Chevy Chase Village, including Connecticut Ave. Accident rates naturally fluctuate and are subject to seasonal variations, so it may have been possible to find a short period of time supporting the safety claims of CCV officials (comparing the worst single month before the cameras to the best single month after). However the numbers from their police reports for any sustained period of time do not support anything remotely close to their claim that the section of Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase Village was seeing an average 14 accidents per month prior to using speed cameras and a 70-80% drop in accidents after they were installed.

Traffic fatalities were reportedly down 9% NATIONWIDE in 2008, attributed to the price of gas, with at least 42 states seeing marked reductions in traffic fatalities. Most of those states do NOT use speed cameras. For the first half of 2008 traffic fatalities per vehicle mile reached the lowest level ever recorded up to that date.

Under Maryland’s newly passed Senate Bill 277, the authorization of speed cameras, local governments which use speed cameras will need to report back to the general assembly in 2012 about the success or failure of their programs. SB277 includes the use of speed cameras in workzones on “expressways” with “speed limits of 45mph or greater” which can be used “regardless of whether workers are present” (not that anyone would ever set up workzone cameras without workers). One study sanctioned by the UK government from 2001-2003 regarding the effectiveness of workzone speed cameras showed “No significant difference was observed in the PIA(personal injury accident) rate for sites with and without speed cameras[source]” However since SB277 sets no standard for measuring success, Maryland’s programs need not need to worry about failure and can all be “successful” since the agencies which control access to the data can choose any standard and present only that data that shows success. It also does not require localities to consider other alternatives for speed control, or demonstrate that speed cameras were actually the best solution.

A petition drive is currently underway to collect 53,000 signatures and force SB277 to a referendum, giving the people or Maryland the opportunity to accept or reject this speed camera expansion by a popular vote. However time is very short to gather the needed signatures, so please go and sign the petition right now.

Under pressure from Chicago’s Daily Herald newspaper, local police in Gurnee are revising promotional materials and presentations to include the fact that Redflex’s automated ticketing machines record video 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

CameraFRAUD has reported on the far-reaching capabilities of the so-called photo radar / enforcement cameras since its inception, including stories regarding the ambitions of ATS and Redflex to become private homeland security contractors much in the shape of Xe (formerly Blackwater).

Gurnee police are tweaking their public presentations on red-light cameras so those in attendance know the devices are constantly providing a live video feed of intersections. At the first of three forums on photo enforcement Wednesday, part of the evening at village hall featured what was called fact and fiction about the cameras. The concept of the cameras running at all times was listed as fiction. In response to audience questions, the crowd was told the cameras are asleep and activate only when a vehicle drives through a red light.

But Gurnee police crime prevention technician Tom Agos, who led the presentation, said he later inquired with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. and received clarification on the cameras. Gurnee will pay $38,000 a month to Redflex for coverage at four intersections, with the system set to go live later this month.

Agos said a high-resolution, digital still camera is triggered only when a vehicle runs a red light at an intersection, capturing a rear license plate in the process. Redflex also has a low-resolution, streaming video feed of intersections that always runs but isn’t supposed to capture images of red-light violators.

“Low resolution” regarding the constant video recording is a blatant lie per Redflex’s own literature, which states: “SMARTCAM Performance features… High-resolution digital imaging at 10 bits per channel, giving 1 billion colors, 65dB dynamic range giving excellent image contrast
Sustainable imaging rates at two frames per second or better…”

Streaming video from red-light cameras is opposed by an anti-photo-enforcement group that contends 24-hour-a-day surveillance of the public is unwarranted.

“Can you remember where you were driving two years ago?” CameraFRAUD volunteer James DeCash wrote in an e-mail. “Redflex can, and if the video is subpoenaed in court, you might have some explaining to do about where you were, what you were doing and who you were associating with.” CameraFRAUD started in the Phoenix area and now has chapters in Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana and Washington, D.C. The organization has plans for branches to fight red-light cameras in Illinois, Florida and Missouri.

Redflex spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran refused to answer a question about the streaming video Friday.

Gov. Martin O’Malley signed some pretty controversial bills Tuesday, but probably none will draw as much attention as his approval of a measure allowing speed cameras near schools and highway construction zones around the state. A referendum drive is already under way to repeal the legislation, and according to Laura Smitherman’s article, organizers have about a fifth of the signatures they need.

I certainly have no problem with bringing this one to the ballot. So far, most of the discussion on this legislation has been dominated by the people who see speed cameras as Big Brotherish intrusion, with relatively little comment from, say, parents who might not mind the idea of slowing people down near schools. I bet there are a lot more of them out there than you’d guess from reading the chat boards on this one.

Opponents are right to wonder if the government is going to use these things as a money grab, or if the vendors who run them would have some kind of financial incentive to issue more tickets than they should. We should keep an eye on that. But let’s not forget that the law allows you to go 12 miles per hour over the speed limit before it triggers a ticket. That’s 37 miles per hour in a typical school zone. If you can’t keep it below that, you probably deserve the $40 fine.