Hell Freezes Over

I read the Baltimore Sun this morning and actually agreed with (most of) a column by Tom Schaller.

The truth about speed cameras is that they are designed to generate revenue. If a driver can admit the violation and pay the fine with no points on his or her license, there's clearly no intent to sort out bad drivers from good ones. Although Maryland will use them only near construction sites and schools, one senses a camel's nose poking inside the tent.

Frankly, what's really happening here is an attempt to tax people who are unfamiliar with the location of the cameras, instead of just raising taxes in a more direct way. As I have argued in this space before, modern voters want more spending but insist on never paying higher income or property taxes (a consequence of the anti-tax revolt that began in California in the mid-1960s, was ratcheted up during Ronald Reagan's presidency and grew to new heights of fiscal irresponsibility during George W. Bush's and, yes, Barack Obama's administrations).

Thus, new and creative forms of taxation must be invented: Sin taxes on junk food, users fees on this or that, new lotteries and slots legalization are all an exercise in deluding ourselves into thinking we can somehow mask taxes or foist them on somebody else. I'm wary of proposals to replace the tax code wholesale with a flat income tax or a universal consumption tax. But when the conservatives who support these alternatives complain that the complexities of the tax code are a form of deceit by politicians and self-deceit by voters, they are right.

As for driving while texting (DWT), there is a heavy whiff of political bullying - not to mention political posturing for the coming 2010 state election cycle - in the new law banning the practice. The target of that bullying is younger drivers.

And frankly, I'm as stunned as you that a liberal Democrat would actually talk sensibly about these issue. Schaller is right in hat Democrats find speed cameras, red-light cameras, and things of this ilk to be nothing more than revenue enhancers. Take a look at this case from Montana:

Yellow times may shorten as the city of Billings, Montana rushes to install red light cameras before the state legislature has a chance to ban them. The Billings City Council voted 8-3 Monday to empower Redflex Traffic Systems, a private company based in Melbourne, Australia, to issue automated traffic citations in return for a cut of the revenue collected. Billings needs to act quickly because the state legislature last Thursday entered into final negotiations on legislation that would ban red light cameras.

After the House had passed legislation banning red light cameras without conditions, state Senator John Brueggeman (R-Polson) added a grandfather clause to the bill that would allow Billings, Bozeman and any other city that enters into a contract before the bill is signed to issue photo tickets without limitation. House members voted 58-42 against this loophole and insisted on convening a conference committee with the Senate to negotiate the final language.

In a memorandum to the city council, Billings Police Chief Rich St. John foresees the prospect of increased revenue from shortened yellow warning phases at intersections equipped with red light cameras.

"Changes in the yellow times after red light camera systems are in place and operational will affect the number of photographed violations, increasing the number of violations when yellow times are shortened and reducing the number of violations when yellow times are lengthened," St. John explained in a memo dated April 8.

So yeah, cameras the Big Brother-esque expansion of traffic cameras are little more than ways to extract a few more bucks from you, the taxpayer. This would be a good time to remind you that you can join the effort to petition the Speed Camera bill to the ballot by joining at www.mdscamera.com.

In case you hadn't heard.....

......there is a new effort to bring the speed camera bill to referendum during the 2010 General Election.

Learn more about how you can help at: http://www.mdscamera.com.

Stating the Obvious

Another study proves once again that red-light cameras are dangerous:

Well, according to study after study, rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and therefore, raise insurance premiums. In fact, the only studies that have shown any benefit to red-light cameras were either done by the IIHS…the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or researchers funded by them. How very strange, don’t you think? The most recent study revealing the truth about the cameras was done by researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health.

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health. “Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections.”

Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are associated with increases in crashes. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. The only studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained “major research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were always conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras since insurance companies can profit from red-light cameras by way of higher premiums due to increased crashes and citations.

I have noted before that my own anecdotal evidence confirms this to be true, and it just passes the common sense test.

This is the inherent problem with red-light cameras and speed cameras; they create dangerous situations for drivers, and serve little purpose other than revenue enhancement for states and localities. How many crashes and how many injuries will it take before the General Assembly puts a halt to these cameras?

Bad Day for Marylanders

Looks like the State Senate forgot it's common sense on the way to the chamber today, not once....:

The Maryland Senate has revived a statewide ban on driving while using a hand-held cell phone.

The legislation, long sought by lawmakers who say it's needed to protect public safety, appeared dead last week when the chamber voted to limit the bill to prohibit only reading or sending text messages on wireless communications devices while behind the wheel. Senators today voted 25-22 to restore the broader ban on talking and texting.

...but twice:

The Maryland Senate mustered the votes today to approve the use of speed cameras in highway work zones and in local jurisdictions that want them in neighborhoods and near schools, while lawmakers in the House argued over a similar measure.

The bill, which was proposed by Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration, was approved by the Senate 26-21 without debate.

It's amazing that the General Assembly would pass such legislation that has little impact in improving the safety of Maryland's highways. Sure, the concept of a hand-held cell-phone ban sounds like something that would improve driver safety, but statistically that's not the case. And we all know that red-light and speed cameras are nothing more than revenue enhancers for localities that actually may increase (not decrease) driver safety in areas where the cameras are being used.

Let's face it; this legislation is of no benefit to the citizenry of Maryland.

It's also amazing that, given the financial and budgetary problems our state has, that the Senate would pass such poppycock that could further put financial and other burdens on the people of Maryland while doing nothing to deal with the important issues that are currently before legislators...

The Piecemeal Approach

Looks like Democrats are planning on going for speed cameras one county at a time:

Howard County's legislators seem poised to approve a local speed-camera bill after a straw vote and discussion with William J. McMahon, the county police chief.

"It might need some fine tuning," said state Sen. James N. Robey, the bill's prime sponsor, but the 11-member delegation voted unanimously to continue discussing the measure and vote on it Wednesday. A statewide bill that would cover work zones on interstate highways in addition to local roads is also to be

The county and state bills would impose $75 fines for speeding on local roads with speed limits up to 45 mph. O'Malley's bill includes warnings but no fines during the first year. The bill would also allow speeding up to 10 miles above the posted limit before triggering a camera ticket.

Of course, what this is is nothing more than a revenue enhancer for Howard County. Time and time a gain these speed cameras have been found to be ineffective at best, dangerous at worst.

However, it does look like a change in strategy for the Democrats on the issue. In the past, most of the legislation (save for the bill for Montgomery County that Governor Ehrlich vetoed, but was overridden by the General Assembly) dealt with a blanket statewide approach to speed cameras. If jurisdictions are going to start requesting enabling legislation on a case by case basis, those who realize the raw deal motorists get from these cameras are going to need to stay mobilized in an effort to fight each one of these bills as they come along, which is going to make it harder to prevent these things from happening.

Dresser needs to get a clue

Michael Dresser once again proves that he is clueless when it comes to driving in Maryland:

Traffic on I-70 may frequently run at 80 mph but never in my experience safely.

What? He can't possibly be serious, because highways are extremely safe in America. We have well built cars and a long expanse of road that makes it very easy to drive at 80 MPH on most American highways. Remember, the Pennsylvania Turnpike was built to be used at a safe speed of 100 MPH; how could driving 80 on I-70 be unsafe?

What's "just plain crazy" is what we've lived with far too long: 40,000-plus highway deaths in the U.S. each year and 600-plus in Maryland. The only way to bring those numbers down is to banish "zoom-zoom-zoom" to Joe Camel's desert.

Which of course, is pure cockamamie. The majority of accidents in Maryland are due to reckless driving, not driving at an unsafe speed. Reckless driving is a lot more than just driving at an unsafe speed; it's swerving, it's tailgating, and it's other activities. Not doing 75 on the Beltway. And those accidents that are not caused by reckless driving are caused by drunk or impaired driving, which no speed law in the world is going to deter those idiots from.

Then, Dresser quotes an email from a similarly uninformed reader:

The solution to the problem is greater enforcement of the law. I rarely see police cruise the highway or park on the side of the road. Speed traps are few and far between. When I lived in The Netherlands, I was impressed by the frequent and routine use of speed cameras to limit speeding and to stop drivers from going through red lights. It worked! The arguments that speed cameras are a step in the direction of Big Brother or simply a revenue generator are nonsense; they are a proven way to slow drivers down, prevent crashes, and keep people from being hurt or killed.

Which of course, is also complete bull. There is a great deal of literature and study out there about the use of speed cameras as revenue generators, and how traffic cameras do nothing to reduce the likelihood of a crash, as noted in several instances. In my anecdotal study with speed cameras in D.C., they actually cause more accidents as drivers slam on the brakes in an effort not to get a ticket. In some cases the cameras just don't work. And Britain, which is littered with these things, is trying desperately to get rid of them.

Dresser needs to get a clue and stop ranting about how horrible Maryland's driversare. As I have said before, what Maryland really needs is to increase our speed limits so that police can go back to doing more important police work than setting speed traps that cause horrific traffic jams at inopportune times...

Sense from the North

A judge in Minnesota has brought some common sense to the red-light camera issue by ordering refunds:

Thousands of people could reclaim up to $2.8 million in fines paid after their vehicles were videotaped going through red lights in Minneapolis, thanks to a ruling Monday that applies to a smaller number of people who sued.

Hennepin County District Judge Mark Wernick found that 147 people who asked to have their red-light cases reopened should get back $142 apiece in fines they paid because the Minnesota Supreme Court has deemed illegal Minneapolis' use of the so-called "PhotoCop" cameras.

And beyond those people, who filed motions without an attorney, up to 15,000 more vehicle owners who had paid tickets could find relief down the road.

If those "PhotoCop" cases are eventually thrown out, the process could involve refunding anywhere from $2.3 million to $2.8 million paid to the city, said Marshall Tanick, one of the attorneys representing clients in a separate federal suit. It's not as simple as cutting everyone a check, though, because the city gave portions of the fine money to the county.

Still, Tanick said, "We're very pleased with the ruling by Judge Wernick.

"It helps advance the constitutional rights of all of the people who received Photo-Cop tickets," he said. "As far as its effect on the federal class action, we think that it will be very helpful in assuring that all people who paid the fine get a refund."

The battle against red-light cameras has been a long one, and hopefully common sense from places like Minnesota will continue to slay these dangerous revenue enhancers...

Red Light Red Light

Long-time readers know one of my pet peeves are red-light cameras. However, some Belgians take things a step farther:

Most traffic lights should be torn up as they make roads less safe, one of Europe's leading road engineers said yesterday.

Hans Monderman, a traffic planner involved in a Brussels-backed project known as Shared Space, said that taking lights away helped motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist more happily and safely.

Residents of the northern Dutch town of Drachten have already been used as guinea-pigs in an experiment which has seen nearly all the traffic lights stripped from their streets.

Only three of the 15 sets in the town of 50,000 remain and they will be gone within a couple of years.

The project is the brainchild of Mr Monderman, and the town has seen some remarkable results. There used to be a road death every three years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started seven years ago.

There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be encouraged, Mr Monderman explained. "We want small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt," he said yesterday.

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

"We only want traffic lights where they are useful and I haven't found anywhere where they are useful yet."

The Belgian example seems to work because Drachten has about 50,000 residents and, like a lot of European locales, a lot of people ride their bikes. But I think this lends credence to the point a lof of Americans have made; red-light cameras do not make the roads safer. They certainly cannot make roads safer if the red-lights themselves.

I'm not certain if we can advoacte the removal of red-lights in the United States. Certainly, traffic in these parts already has its share of dangerous drivers who do not understand the rules of the road. Plus, if you remove lights, what do you replace them with? Stop signs? Roundabouts, which seem to already be popping up like kudzu across the state?

The red-lights will stay; its the red-light cameras that have to go...