8 ms·
DC, Maryland: Speed Camera Firms Move To Hide Evidence
- wtvanhest 13y agoFor those that have never lived in DC, the cameras are everywhere. Inside the district they have a bunch of white lines where you are being measured for speed so that the camera's two photos' time stamps can (presumably) be examined to make sure you were actually speeding.
- dailyrorschach 13y agoThe speed limit sign before the camera area also has a yellow sign beneath it saying Photo Enforced, I've found it very easy to avoid getting a ticket.
- eli 13y agoMy impression is that they're also pretty popular among residents. I think many--probably most--DC residents support the cameras, at least in principle. See, for example, the comments in this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1jagry/yes_some_people_are_actually_calling_for_more/ http://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1jagry/yes_som...
- zzleeper 13y agoWell, most people driving in DC actually live and vote in VA and MD. For DC, it's an easy way to "tax" commuters and get a nice revenue stream
- incision 13y agoWell, DC is the special case in the area. Over a third of residents don't own a car and just a hair under half (49.5%) walk or use public transit to get to work. Contrast that with MD or VA where the numbers are 11% and 6.6% respectively. In MD/VA 83%/87% drive or carpool to work. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/ http://factfinder2.census.gov/) I expect the majority of people ticketed in DC are those commuters coming from the surrounding suburbs. It's logical that people who aren't negatively affected by the cameras have a better opinion of them. Even then, the survey linked in that thread shows a fairly narrow majority (55%) approval. There's more cheering for red light cameras and requests for box block cameras than traffic cameras in general. Anecdotally, most find red light cameras more acceptable than speed cameras. Personally, I commute into DC every day, but rarely by car. I don't mind the cameras outside of the uncharacteristically low-speed ones posted along empty stretches on the main arteries in and out of town. They're automated toll collectors targeting tourists and first-timers. Also, what a typical Reddit thread. Every comment that's remotely critical of the cameras has been downvoted negative despite some perfectly valid points.
- eli 13y agoDC is also a special case because it's the only place in America where it's against Federal Law to implement a proper commuter tax.
- mathattack 13y agoIs false ticketing really an issue? I would think that there are a lot of bigger issues with all these cameras.
- mpyne 13y agoI pass by two of those cameras twice a week. Sometimes I'm over the limit since it changes rather drastically from 60 to 50 (though normally I'm way under since the assholes in front of me slow down way too much). But either way, I've not been ticketed a single time.
- dhugiaskmak 13y agoIn Maryland the cameras don't trigger unless you're going at least 12mph over the speed limit.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoObviously the big issue here is trust, you can't automate it. You can try, but then it's going to come up in court that this was rubber stamped. This makes me think of other situations where "authority" is contracted out to external companies for the government. i.e. privtization of government is going to be a real problem when it comes to proving anything in court.
- mathattack 13y agoI guess to me there's a big difference between automating speeding tickets and subcontracting prisons. I think the controversial issue on cameras is "What else are they doing with the pictures?"
- Shivetya 13y agofixed place cameras catching you speeding is one thing, all the recent stories about cop cars scanning EVERY license plate they pass are an example of how its really out of control. I don't mind nabbing speeders provided its an important place to nail them, like school zones. Its the free for all photographing of license plates that gets me irate.
- Mr_N 13y agoTo provide a small anecdote; on my 10 minute commute to work each morning, I pass no fewer than 6 speeding cameras, potentially more that I haven't noticed, and frankly, the sheer prevalence and "sneakyness" by which they are deployed convinced me long ago that the goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding. (Cameras hidden in bushes/behind trees, 2 cameras on the same block, within ~20 seconds of each other, both hidden behind shrubbery on the right hand side of a right hand turn). In writing this I admit I have second guesses of whether I'm being too tin foil hat with the suspicions, but it's basically a checklist of "where would I put cameras if I wanted to accumulate the maximum # of violations", with no regard to where the most dangerous roads on this commute are. Let's even take a step back here and look at the program itself. It's not really "news" that behavioral modification (which, in a perfect world, is the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding) doesn't really work well when the punishment is long after the action that it is reinforcing. One could make a very hand wavy argument about the flash, but it's a weak reinforcer (the monetary punishment being very delayed), and the swapping with infrared is the nail in the coffin of that argument.
- pdonis 13y agothe goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding You're just now realizing this? This has always been the primary goal of speeding laws (and many other traffic laws). They're a revenue source for state and local governments. the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding If that's really the goal (which it isn't, see above), it's the wrong goal. The goal should be to make driving safer. Punishing people when they haven't caused any actual harm does not serve that goal; in fact, it works against it, by reducing people's respect for all traffic laws and rules of the road. People view driving as a game, trying to evade being caught, instead of viewing it as what it is, being in control of a large and complex piece of machinery that can cause serious harm if misused, because the definition of "misuse" has been blown out of all proportion by a combination of nanny-state thinking and governments not wanting to openly admit their sources of revenue.
- Mr_N 13y agoSorry if I was unclear; I meant to express that I had indeed quite some time ago come to the realization, but due to placement as I said and not due to any solid proof as is cited in the article. Secondly; I'm not sure I completely see you as disagreeing with my stated end goal. We want people to realize they are driving a potential weapon, and I think that's a change that'll have to come in far more areas than just traffic enforcement (better education, assessment of readiness, etc), but even in this dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm. And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns. (unless I totally misunderstood how you were approaching my statement and this just went off in a random direction...)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ronaldj 13y agoI moved from Maryland a couple of years ago. Very surprised to see how many speed cameras pop up each time I go back for a visit. I don't speed, but whenever I see a sign for one it really stresses me out. Glad I don't live there anymore.
- dubfan 13y agoThis is no surprise to me. The company in question, American Traffic Solutions, has been caught engaging in some ethically questionable behavior by the Everett (WA) Herald. Some choice articles: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929
- janesvilleseo 13y agoInteresting. I tried to view both articles and the are no longer on site. I did find them via Google's cache.
- Amadou 13y agoI don't know if the OP update his posting but both URLs work just fine for me.
- prawn 13y agoWhy is this privatised? Too easy to abuse. If the ultimate goal, as it should be, is safety/deterrence, then a camera flash (reminds other motorists) is surely a decent idea? I drove in the UK recently and there are speed camera warning signs everywhere, usually followed by quite obvious cameras. Here in Australia, police have been known to hide around corners or position cameras disguised as roadside garbage bins, though I haven't heard much on this front for a while so maybe public outcry have pulled them a little into line. For the most part though, the cameras are not unreasonably located and an unspoken leeway of about 10% applies (e.g., can get away with 54 in a 50 zone).
- pc86 13y agoThe idea that it's easier for a private entity to abuse a system like this than a government is laughable.
- jcromartie 13y agoQ: Why is this privatised? A: Too easy to abuse. If some change makes for easy abuse, the private industry will lobby for it to be made public policy.
- darasen 13y ago"Why is this privatised? Too easy to abuse." Because the government never participates in abuse?
- vonmoltke 13y agoGovernment is right in the middle of this. The city of Baltimore issued a speeding citation to a driver who was not moving after the camera evidence went past two city reviewers: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57559105-71/speed-camera-gives-ticket-to-stationary-car/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57559105-71/speed-camera-g...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- 13y ago
- losethos 13y agohttp://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/19-21-compare.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/19-21-compare.html Motherfucker jinxed me. I gave everything away in 1996 and was furious. You try to be perfect and give everything away and someone saves your shit and you throw it away and they dig it up. Motherfucker. God says... relax pwned kick_back how_about_those_yankees could_it_be___Satan don't_have_a_cow Greece kick_back that's_for_me_to_know well_I_never hit you_know_a_better_God I'll_think_about_it it'd_take_a_miracle far_out_man downer end didn't_I_say_that jobs wont_you_be_my_neighbor it's_hopeless outrageous wanna_bet programming
- mikegagnon 13y agoBy cropping every photo, DC hearing adjudicators should now throw out every alleged traffic violation (regardless of what the photographs purport to show). It is simple why: 1. "DC hearing adjudicators have been throwing out citations whenever another vehicle was visible, creating the possibility of a spurious radar reading" 2. The accused to do not need to prove their innocence; rather the court has to prove the guilt of the accused 3. It now becomes impossible adjudicators to know if the another vehicle interfered with the radar 4. There is now __always__ reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty (since the camera system always crops photos) 5. The accused should always be found not guilty It is really a detestable perversion of justice for prosecution to systematically hide evidence. Why doesn't the prosecution just make their lives easier by throwing out all cases where there are other vehicles in the photo?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Natsu 13y agoIt would be interesting if people were able to get the full digital copies, because many times edits will leave evidence behind. If you have EXIF or other data on the camera, you might know what size the photos are supposed to be and can then prove that they've been cropped because they're some oddball size. Also, software like Adobe Photoshop may leave behind things like a thumbnail of the original picture in the metadata. I seem to remember a few people being embarrassed by that one.
- lostlogin 13y agoThe Iraq war dossier of Blair's comes to mind. http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm
- wyclif 13y agoWhat is the state of tag-obscuring devices these days? I would imagine this piece of crowdfunded hardware might prove useful: http://www.nophoto.com/pages/how-it-works http://www.nophoto.com/pages/how-it-works
- pc86 13y agoIs this really legal?
- jpollock 13y agoHere in NZ, they have started putting up signs that show your speed instead of taking a picture and issuing a fine. They have found that displaying a vehicle's speed has a much stronger impact on speed (and accidents) than tickets.
- jared314 13y agoI wonder if that has more to do with the number of drivers passing it per day, the immediate response to the drivers actions, or an assumption that the signs take a picture anyway. I would assume people choosing to speed would not care about a sign.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dkrich 13y agoThe problem is that cities want more revenue and so aren't motivated by public safety but rather ways to bring in more money, hence the desire to suppress evidence that in some cases may make people safer (like the flash bulbs, for example).
- teej 13y agoWe had those in Maryland before the speed cameras, but the crack of speed ticket money is too good for our law enforcement to put down. It's unfortunate, speed cameras have been shown to have a negative impact on accidents.
- X-Istence 13y agoLight turns orange? I hit my brakes hard if an intersection has cameras. Who knows whether the light is set to stay orange for the required X amount of seconds, or if it has been lowered to Y seconds to try to make money off people. The people behind me better hope they weren't tailgating me AND have brakes just as good as mine ...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jchrisa 13y agoAnything that makes driving less convenient is fine by me!
- Sauer_Kraut 13y agoThis is a horrific attitude.
- avty 13y agoThe end of liberty.