Sykesville residents will be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow the speed camera program which the town council voted to approve last month. Under the town charter, a newly ordinances can be forced to a referendum if 15% of the town's registered voters sign a petition within 20 days of its passage. The required number of signatures for this petition was 338, but the organizers had only 11 days to gather them because they only became aware of the right to petition for a referendum 9 days after the bill was passed. This set a very high bar which the newly formed organization needed to meet. In addition, the effort was hampered by miserable rainy weather during the last weekend before the deadline, forcing petitioners to carry the signed forms in ziplock bags and tupperware containers to keep them from getting soaked. However on Sunday March 14 the group's organizer, Sykesville resident Chris Martin, turned in the petition to the Mayor with signatures from 529 town residents, 56% more than the required number, and 23.5% of the total registered voters in the town.
The petition signatures will still need to be verified by the town clerk. Assuming no excuse is found to invalidate it the town will schedule the referendum either at the next regular election or at a special election. This would make Sykesville residents the first in Maryland to have the opportunity to directly vote for or against speed cameras. In other instances in the US when photo enforcement has been put to a direct popular vote, The People have rejected the cameras EVERY SINGLE TIME.
=====================================
UPDATED 3/30/2009:
The Sykesville town clerk has approved the petition. The referendum is scheduled for TUESDAY MAY 4, 2010. If you are a Sykesville resident but are not registered to vote the deadline to register is Monday April 19, 2010. Voter Registration forms may be picked up at the Sykesville Town House, 7547 Main Street, Sykesville, MD 21784 or at the Carroll County Board of Elections, 225 N. Center Street, Westminster, MD 21157. For further information call the Town Clerk at 410-795-8959 or the Carroll County Board of Elections at 410-386-2080.
The final version of the ordinance not only authorizes speed cameras but designates all roads within a 1/2 mile radius, including many roads not adjacent to the grounds of a school. Sykesville had only one school zone designated previously and two of the facilities did not have ANY roads designated as school zones near them previously. The ordinance sets the speed limits in all school zones at 25mph, including portions of Springfield Ave/Main Street/ West Friendship Road where the speed limit is currently 30mph -- lowering the speed by 5mph and turning currently safe legal drivers into "lawbreakers".
You can read the full text of the ordinance HERE .
Sykesville residents: this is your chance to have your say on this issue. Probably your ONLY chance EVER. IF YOU DON'T VOTE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
State Run Speed Camera Money To Go Into General Fund
One of the points which speed camera supporters use to try to refute arguments that governments want speed cameras only because they make money, is that in Maryland the money is supposed to be allocated to specific purposes. We previously demonstrated that the restriction written into state law that speed camera money is to be spent only on "public safety" was completely meaningless, because local governments were free to re-define this to include whatever budget items they wanted.
Now the state of Maryland has provided another excellent example of how these types of restrictions are easily circumvented when the money is desired for other purposes. A preliminary budget document from the Department of State Police notes that in the case of freeway work zone camera revenue, "Under the law, the balance of speed monitoring revenues is to be distributed to DSP to fund “roadside enforcement activities”. It also states that "In light of the current fiscal environment,"[...] "DLS recommends budget bill language that
requires DSP to offset speed monitoring revenues in excess of $5.0 million with a general fund reversion." In other words, if the project makes just a little money, spend it on the purpose required by law. But if it makes LOTS of money, cut the specified budget by an equal amount, and then use the remainder to help Governor O'Malley close the state's looming general fund budget gap. Never mind that doing so might well violate state law, or at least that it provides yet another example of how ALL the restrictions built into the state's speed camera law are in fact unenforced or unenforceable and serve no purpose other than for public relations.
The state's freeway work zone speed camera program is still a pilot project, utilizing only two mobile units so far. According to the document, the Maryland State Police have entered a temporary contract which will expire in June 2010 and are reviewing proposals for a permanent contract, which would allow a full blown program to get into full swing right about the time state officials have cleared the 2010 elections.
Now the state of Maryland has provided another excellent example of how these types of restrictions are easily circumvented when the money is desired for other purposes. A preliminary budget document from the Department of State Police notes that in the case of freeway work zone camera revenue, "Under the law, the balance of speed monitoring revenues is to be distributed to DSP to fund “roadside enforcement activities”. It also states that "In light of the current fiscal environment,"[...] "DLS recommends budget bill language that
requires DSP to offset speed monitoring revenues in excess of $5.0 million with a general fund reversion." In other words, if the project makes just a little money, spend it on the purpose required by law. But if it makes LOTS of money, cut the specified budget by an equal amount, and then use the remainder to help Governor O'Malley close the state's looming general fund budget gap. Never mind that doing so might well violate state law, or at least that it provides yet another example of how ALL the restrictions built into the state's speed camera law are in fact unenforced or unenforceable and serve no purpose other than for public relations.
The state's freeway work zone speed camera program is still a pilot project, utilizing only two mobile units so far. According to the document, the Maryland State Police have entered a temporary contract which will expire in June 2010 and are reviewing proposals for a permanent contract, which would allow a full blown program to get into full swing right about the time state officials have cleared the 2010 elections.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Nationwide Traffic Fatalities Continue To Decline
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued its annual summary of traffic safety for 2009, which shows that roads in the US are the safest they have ever been. Traffic fatalities dropped 8.9% nationwide compared to 2008. This follows a 10.5% decline from 2007-2008. The report showed that nationwide fatalities were 21.9% lower in 2009 than in 2005. The total fatalities nationwide were at the lowest level since 1954, when the number of US drivers was about 1/2 what it is today.
Traffic fatalities per vehicle mile also dipped from 1.25 per 100million vehicle-miles in 2008 to 1.16 in 2009, a continuation of a 30 year long decline in fatalities per mile traveled.
The report largely attributes the decline to campaigns to increase seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving. Safety improvements to roads and vehicles were also cited. The large decline seen in 2008 had been attributed to rising gas prices and poor economic conditions cutting miles traveled. Reduced total driving and reduced recreational driving were cited for the 2009 decline as well, however there was an small (0.2%) increase in vehicle miles traveled in 2009 despite recession conditions. The report did not list automated traffic enforcement, which is still only used on a very small minority of roads in the US, as a contributing factor.
Traffic fatalities per vehicle mile also dipped from 1.25 per 100million vehicle-miles in 2008 to 1.16 in 2009, a continuation of a 30 year long decline in fatalities per mile traveled.
The report largely attributes the decline to campaigns to increase seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving. Safety improvements to roads and vehicles were also cited. The large decline seen in 2008 had been attributed to rising gas prices and poor economic conditions cutting miles traveled. Reduced total driving and reduced recreational driving were cited for the 2009 decline as well, however there was an small (0.2%) increase in vehicle miles traveled in 2009 despite recession conditions. The report did not list automated traffic enforcement, which is still only used on a very small minority of roads in the US, as a contributing factor.
Reactions: |
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sykesville Residents Wage Desperate Battle to Stop 'Greed Cameras'
A group of Sykesville residents are pushing to have the town's recently approved speed forced to a popular vote. A new town ordinance approved the use of speed cameras in the town and also converted almost the entire town into a gigantic school zone solely and expressed for the purpose of using of speed cameras, despite a statement by the SHA making it clear that this practice is NOT appropriate. The streets designated for speed camera use were never considered or marked as school zones previously, and at least one of the roads which will become a 'school zone' only barely comes within 1/2 mile of a facility which the town never previously considered to be a 'school'. The final version of the ordinance designates all roads within a 1/2 mile radius of the three facilities as school zones, and sets the speed limits in all school zones at 25mph, including portions of Springfield Ave/Main Street/ West Friendship Road where the speed limit is currently 30mph -- lowering the speed by 5mph and turning currently safe legal drivers into "lawbreakers".
Read the full text of the ordinance HERE .
The Sykesville town council voted 5-1 to approve the measure : Mayor Mike Miller and council members Leslie Reed, Frank Robert Jr., Ian Shaw and Chris True voted in favor of stripping citizens of their legal rights and subjecting them to mass surveillance for money, while Councilman Leo Keenan voted against.
Under state law the town is permitted to use camera revenue to increase its total budget by up to 10%, which after expenses would require sending out approximately 12,000 citations per year or about 3 tickets per resident.
The town held two hearings regarding the cameras. At the first several residents spoke out against the cameras, but the second was rescheduled to February 22 due to snow with some town residents who had planned to speak against the cameras being unaware of the new date, and the council voted for the measure at the end of the rescheduled meeting while one council member (who went on the record as being against the ordinance) was absent.
The town council's actions so enrages one resident so much that he has started a petition drive to force the ordinance to a referendum. However the requirements of this effort are extremely stringent: collect signatures from 15% of the town's registered voters (338 signatures) within 20 days of the measure -- and the organizers lost 9 days before they could learn the petition requirements to even get started.
Nevertheless the effort is off to a good start, with the petitioners collecting 20-25% of the necessary signatures in the first weekend. The group's organizer, Chris Martin, stated that on one day he got 85 signatures while meeting only 5 people who supported the cameras. NO SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM IN THE US HAS EVER SURVIVED BEING PUT TO A REFERENDUM. However due to the ridiculous timeline the effort to get it on the ballot needs help!!! Anyone who wants to sign the petition or who is in a position to help collect signatures should please contact Chris Martin by email or by phone at (240)328-7634.
Read the full text of the ordinance HERE .
The Sykesville town council voted 5-1 to approve the measure : Mayor Mike Miller and council members Leslie Reed, Frank Robert Jr., Ian Shaw and Chris True voted in favor of stripping citizens of their legal rights and subjecting them to mass surveillance for money, while Councilman Leo Keenan voted against.
Under state law the town is permitted to use camera revenue to increase its total budget by up to 10%, which after expenses would require sending out approximately 12,000 citations per year or about 3 tickets per resident.
The town held two hearings regarding the cameras. At the first several residents spoke out against the cameras, but the second was rescheduled to February 22 due to snow with some town residents who had planned to speak against the cameras being unaware of the new date, and the council voted for the measure at the end of the rescheduled meeting while one council member (who went on the record as being against the ordinance) was absent.
The town council's actions so enrages one resident so much that he has started a petition drive to force the ordinance to a referendum. However the requirements of this effort are extremely stringent: collect signatures from 15% of the town's registered voters (338 signatures) within 20 days of the measure -- and the organizers lost 9 days before they could learn the petition requirements to even get started.
Nevertheless the effort is off to a good start, with the petitioners collecting 20-25% of the necessary signatures in the first weekend. The group's organizer, Chris Martin, stated that on one day he got 85 signatures while meeting only 5 people who supported the cameras. NO SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM IN THE US HAS EVER SURVIVED BEING PUT TO A REFERENDUM. However due to the ridiculous timeline the effort to get it on the ballot needs help!!! Anyone who wants to sign the petition or who is in a position to help collect signatures should please contact Chris Martin by email or by phone at (240)328-7634.
Reactions: |
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Montgomery County Planning Another Speed Camera Expansion
(updated 3/23/2010)
The Montgomery County Council wants to authorize the County Executive to add more speed cameras without the need for him to first get additional approval or hold public hearings.
In 2010 the Montgomery County Council voted to double the number of fixed pole speed cameras in use and wrote an estimated $29.3million in revenue into their Fiscal Year 2010 budget from traffic violations which were not yet committed (That amount was approximately 50% more than the $20million the cameras brought in for FY09, according to data from the county's proposed FY11 budget. In this budget document, camera revenues are stated to go into "County General Fund Revenues", not into a special fund reserved for "public safety" as county officials claim). However they now estimate that they will receive a total of only $17.2million by the end of the fiscal year in June. Montgomery County is facing an estimated $600million budget gap in FY2011, and have cited their "lost" camera revenue as one of the reasons for this. (Apparently previous years of excessive spending now coming home to roost had nothing to do with it. The council's vote back in 2008 to give county homeowners 4 years worth of property tax increases in a single year was insufficient to compensate for the problem).
The county claims the reason they "lost" $12million in camera revenue was because of a change in state law which permits "school zone cameras" to issue tickets only on weekends. There are already at least 212 camera sites in Montgomery County (combined fixed and mobile), 119 managed by the county and the remainder managed by municipalities (Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Rockville, and Gaithersburg). 80% of these are designated as "residential speed cameras", meaning that unlike "school zone" cameras permitted in the rest of the state these cameras issue citations 24/7. So the reality is that only a small percentage of cameras had their hours of operation reduced by the change. The county council also voted on the FY10 budget in May 2009, a month after the change to state law was passed, so the impact if any was known at that time.
Under the bill, labeled 7-10, (see text of the bill here), the County Executive would be permitted to authorize any number of new speed cameras by executive order at any time (in order to fix such budget shortfalls). There would be no need to consult the council or the public. There would also be no need to obtain traffic studies to ensure that the speed limit was appropriate, or to determine what effect drivers slowing down to 10 mph at the new camera sites will have on traffic congestion (Montgomery County's Traffic Congestion is already the 4rth worst in the US. Wanna shoot for #1?). So next time there is an unexpected revenue shortfall, they need only approve an unlimited number of new mobile camera sites with no discussion or consideration.
The bill is scheduled for a hearing on March 23rd at 7:30pm.
The Montgomery County Council wants to authorize the County Executive to add more speed cameras without the need for him to first get additional approval or hold public hearings.
In 2010 the Montgomery County Council voted to double the number of fixed pole speed cameras in use and wrote an estimated $29.3million in revenue into their Fiscal Year 2010 budget from traffic violations which were not yet committed (That amount was approximately 50% more than the $20million the cameras brought in for FY09, according to data from the county's proposed FY11 budget. In this budget document, camera revenues are stated to go into "County General Fund Revenues", not into a special fund reserved for "public safety" as county officials claim). However they now estimate that they will receive a total of only $17.2million by the end of the fiscal year in June. Montgomery County is facing an estimated $600million budget gap in FY2011, and have cited their "lost" camera revenue as one of the reasons for this. (Apparently previous years of excessive spending now coming home to roost had nothing to do with it. The council's vote back in 2008 to give county homeowners 4 years worth of property tax increases in a single year was insufficient to compensate for the problem).
The county claims the reason they "lost" $12million in camera revenue was because of a change in state law which permits "school zone cameras" to issue tickets only on weekends. There are already at least 212 camera sites in Montgomery County (combined fixed and mobile), 119 managed by the county and the remainder managed by municipalities (Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Rockville, and Gaithersburg). 80% of these are designated as "residential speed cameras", meaning that unlike "school zone" cameras permitted in the rest of the state these cameras issue citations 24/7. So the reality is that only a small percentage of cameras had their hours of operation reduced by the change. The county council also voted on the FY10 budget in May 2009, a month after the change to state law was passed, so the impact if any was known at that time.
Under the bill, labeled 7-10, (see text of the bill here), the County Executive would be permitted to authorize any number of new speed cameras by executive order at any time (in order to fix such budget shortfalls). There would be no need to consult the council or the public. There would also be no need to obtain traffic studies to ensure that the speed limit was appropriate, or to determine what effect drivers slowing down to 10 mph at the new camera sites will have on traffic congestion (Montgomery County's Traffic Congestion is already the 4rth worst in the US. Wanna shoot for #1?). So next time there is an unexpected revenue shortfall, they need only approve an unlimited number of new mobile camera sites with no discussion or consideration.
The bill is scheduled for a hearing on March 23rd at 7:30pm.
Maryland Lawmakers Want School Buses to Issue Photo Tickets
Several state lawmakers from Frederick County want to turn all the school buses in the state into roving camera ticket vans.
The legislation (Senate Bill 1001 and House Bill 1376) is sponsored by six members of the Frederick County delegation to the general Assembly (Senator Brinkley (R), Delegates Stull (R), G. Clagett(D), Elliott(R), Hecht(D), and Jenkins(R)).
Under current Maryland law, it is illegal to pass a bus from either direction while the bus is stopped with flashers on, or to stop closer than 20 feet from a bus parked with its flashers on, with the exception of passing on a divided roadway from the opposite direction. This legislation would permit those violations to be enforced by cameras affixed to the many thousands of school buses in the state.
The features of legislation include the following:
The fines would be set at $100. One of the sponsors of the bill (Senator Brinkley) stated that he thought fines should be raised to $500 while still having owner responsibility and a reduced burden of proof.
We wrote to two sponsors of the bill (Senator Brinkley and Delegate G. Claggett) and asked for more information about the legislation, including whether there was any data showing that these cameras would reduce accidents. When they did not respond after 1 week we did our own research. According to a National Highway Safety Traffic Administration report : "American students are nearly eight times safer riding in a school bus than with their own parents and guardians in cars. The fatality rate for school buses is only 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to 1.5 fatalities per 100 million VMT for cars." We discovered another report which stated that in the entire US, every year out of the 25million students who take school buses there are an average of 15 "pedestrian fatalities at school bus stops". This figure is extremely tragic, but it apparently includes fatalities from students being hit by buses rather than cars and other accidents which were not the result of passing incidents, and it is less than 2% of traffic fatalities involving school children.
We could not find any government studies to determine whether or not our children will ever want or need the legal rights Americans used to have before the advent of photo enforcement.
The bills will have a hearing in the House Environmental Matters Committee on March 9 and in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee on March 25.
The legislation (Senate Bill 1001 and House Bill 1376) is sponsored by six members of the Frederick County delegation to the general Assembly (Senator Brinkley (R), Delegates Stull (R), G. Clagett(D), Elliott(R), Hecht(D), and Jenkins(R)).
Under current Maryland law, it is illegal to pass a bus from either direction while the bus is stopped with flashers on, or to stop closer than 20 feet from a bus parked with its flashers on, with the exception of passing on a divided roadway from the opposite direction. This legislation would permit those violations to be enforced by cameras affixed to the many thousands of school buses in the state.
The features of legislation include the following:
- Permits evidence to be admitted "without authentication"
- Citations are the responsibility of the vehicle owner even if they were not driving
- Does not state that the camera operator (or bus driver) needs to appear at court hearings, and does not state that the accused has the right to request the operator appear
- Explicitly lowers the burden of proof for the state to the lowest level possible
- Does not bar the camera vendor or the bus driver (who provide the evidence for court cases) from receiving a portion of ticket fees
- Does not contain any "public notification" requirement (such as the use of signs) to inform people in the area that they are subject to being photographed
- Does not explicitly state that the camera images need to prove a violation took place (for example, that the flashers were in fact on and that vehicle was not already passing before the lights went on), only that they need to show the vehicle's license plate number.
The fines would be set at $100. One of the sponsors of the bill (Senator Brinkley) stated that he thought fines should be raised to $500 while still having owner responsibility and a reduced burden of proof.
We wrote to two sponsors of the bill (Senator Brinkley and Delegate G. Claggett) and asked for more information about the legislation, including whether there was any data showing that these cameras would reduce accidents. When they did not respond after 1 week we did our own research. According to a National Highway Safety Traffic Administration report : "American students are nearly eight times safer riding in a school bus than with their own parents and guardians in cars. The fatality rate for school buses is only 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to 1.5 fatalities per 100 million VMT for cars." We discovered another report which stated that in the entire US, every year out of the 25million students who take school buses there are an average of 15 "pedestrian fatalities at school bus stops". This figure is extremely tragic, but it apparently includes fatalities from students being hit by buses rather than cars and other accidents which were not the result of passing incidents, and it is less than 2% of traffic fatalities involving school children.
We could not find any government studies to determine whether or not our children will ever want or need the legal rights Americans used to have before the advent of photo enforcement.
The bills will have a hearing in the House Environmental Matters Committee on March 9 and in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee on March 25.
Reactions: |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2019
(3)
- ► November 2019 (1)
- ► August 2019 (1)
- ► February 2019 (1)
-
►
2018
(10)
- ► December 2018 (1)
- ► October 2018 (1)
- ► August 2018 (1)
- ► April 2018 (1)
- ► February 2018 (4)
- ► January 2018 (2)
-
►
2017
(20)
- ► December 2017 (1)
- ► September 2017 (2)
- ► August 2017 (4)
- ► March 2017 (2)
- ► February 2017 (5)
- ► January 2017 (5)
-
►
2016
(21)
- ► December 2016 (4)
- ► November 2016 (3)
- ► October 2016 (1)
- ► April 2016 (2)
- ► March 2016 (2)
- ► February 2016 (4)
- ► January 2016 (3)
-
►
2015
(39)
- ► December 2015 (2)
- ► October 2015 (1)
- ► September 2015 (5)
- ► August 2015 (3)
- ► April 2015 (1)
- ► March 2015 (5)
- ► February 2015 (5)
- ► January 2015 (5)
-
►
2014
(82)
- ► December 2014 (4)
- ► November 2014 (3)
- ► October 2014 (3)
- ► September 2014 (9)
- ► August 2014 (6)
- ► April 2014 (4)
- ► March 2014 (10)
- ► February 2014 (14)
- ► January 2014 (12)
-
►
2013
(102)
- ► December 2013 (11)
- ► November 2013 (10)
- ► October 2013 (9)
- ► September 2013 (5)
- ► August 2013 (7)
- ► April 2013 (7)
- ► March 2013 (14)
- ► February 2013 (6)
- ► January 2013 (8)
-
►
2012
(66)
- ► December 2012 (6)
- ► November 2012 (4)
- ► October 2012 (9)
- ► September 2012 (8)
- ► August 2012 (8)
- ► April 2012 (2)
- ► March 2012 (8)
- ► February 2012 (7)
- ► January 2012 (7)
-
►
2011
(88)
- ► December 2011 (3)
- ► November 2011 (4)
- ► October 2011 (7)
- ► September 2011 (5)
- ► August 2011 (7)
- ► April 2011 (6)
- ► March 2011 (9)
- ► February 2011 (10)
- ► January 2011 (10)
-
▼
2010
(69)
- ► December 2010 (6)
- ► November 2010 (4)
- ► October 2010 (10)
- ► September 2010 (9)
- ► August 2010 (4)
- ► April 2010 (4)
-
▼
March 2010
(6)
- Sykesville Residents Demand Referendum, Rebuke Cam...
- State Run Speed Camera Money To Go Into General Fund
- Nationwide Traffic Fatalities Continue To Decline
- Sykesville Residents Wage Desperate Battle to Stop...
- Montgomery County Planning Another Speed Camera Ex...
- Maryland Lawmakers Want School Buses to Issue Phot...
- ► February 2010 (4)
- ► January 2010 (6)
-
►
2009
(58)
- ► December 2009 (4)
- ► November 2009 (6)
- ► October 2009 (9)
- ► September 2009 (6)
- ► August 2009 (1)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► March 2009 (6)
- ► February 2009 (6)
- ► January 2009 (7)
-
►
2008
(17)
- ► December 2008 (4)
- ► November 2008 (4)
- ► October 2008 (1)
- ► September 2008 (1)
- ► August 2008 (2)
- ► March 2008 (2)

Our Top Stories
- Rockville Falsely Accuses School Bus of Speeding
- Montgomery County Has Secret Speed Camera Committee -- Press and Critics Not Welcome
- Montgomery Speed Camera "OmBudsman" Won't Answer Questions
- Montgomery County Issues Erroneous Tickets
- College Park Cited Stationary Bus for Speeding
- Montgomery County ATEU Defends Culture of Secrecy
- How Two-Faced Triple-A Gave Maryland Speed Cameras
- "Secret" Baltimore Speed Camera Audit Found 10% Error Rate
- Speed Camera Reform Act Just a Big Fat Lie
- Court Rules Against Morningside on Public Records Access
- Speed Camera Company Celebrates "Bounty System" Loophole
- Montgomery County Steals Lanes for Expensive Bus Program
- Wicomico County Teachers Say Camera is Not Accurate
- Montgomery Council President Rice Racked Up Tickets
- Circuit Court Rules Innocence is a Defense, Rejects "Snitch" Requirement
- Baltimore Ends Camera Contract, Moves to Hides Records
- Montgomery Scamera Boss Lies About Red Light Camera "Warning Flashes"
- Montgomery County Camera Boss Blocks Public From Secret Meeting
- Salisbury Records Show Calibration Lapses, Sorry No Refunds!!
- Speed Camera Accuracy Questioned in Morningside
- Attorny General Gansler Depicted as "Reckless Passenger"
- Morningside Deployed Cameras Despite County Denial
- Morningside Admits Maintaining No Calibration Records, Doesn't Operate Own Cameras
- ACLU Documents Mass Tracking of Motorists By License Plate Scannrs
- Brekford Demands Tribute to See Calibration Records
- Access To Brekford Calibration Records Stalled in Salisbury, Morningside
- Public and Private Lobbyists Worked to Kill Speed Camera Reform
- Montgomery County Speed Camera Transforms Toyota into Dodge
- Montgomery County Boasts Error Rate "Under Ten Percent"
- Speed Camera Company Collects Dirt on Competitors
- Woman Gets 3 Tickets from DC Without Going There
- Legislature Raises Gas Tax
- Laurel, Hagerstown Circumvent Calibration Requirement
- Speed Camera Calibration Fails To Ensure Accuracy
- Speed Camera Programs Flout Sunshine Law
- Xerox Admits 5% Error Rate For Speed Camera Tickets
- Baltimore Cites Motionless Car For Speeding
- O'Malley Says Speed Camera Bounties Are Illegal
- Baltimore Ticketed Innocent Delivery Vehicle: Documents Prove Speed Camera Error
- Rockville Sees Huge Surge in Red Light Violations
- Trucking Company Challenges Accuracy of Baltimore Citations: Videos Prove Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Salesman Caught Speeding AGAIN
- Riverdale Park Defends Forgery of Police Signatures
- High Court Rules Local Governments Above the Law
- Riverdale Park Allowed Civilians to Forge Police Approvals
- Baltimore Speed Camera Issues Ticket to the Dead
- Statewide Speed Cameras Now a $77Million Per Year Industry
- PG County Court Presumes All Defendants Guilty
- Town Releases Documents Proving Errors With Optotraffic Cameras
- Man arrested for asserting innocence in speed camera hearing
- Optotraffic Representative Caught Speeding
- Driver Uses Carchip to Challenge Optotraffic Camera
- Deceased Baltimore Cop Signs 2000 Citations
- Montgomery County Denies Right To Face Camera Operator In Court
- ACS Buys Steak Dinners For Lawmakers
- Baltimore City Issues Hundreds of Tickets in Error
- Baltimore Writes Speed Camera Revenues Into Budget Before Cameras Approved
- Camera Mistakenly Accuses Driver of 100mph Rampage
- Montgomery County Scamera Contract Includes Massive PR Campaign
- Optotraffic Investigates Possible Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Legislation Attracts Lobbyists
- Sykesville Voters Overturn Speed Cameras in Referendum
- Traffic Engineering Techniques Out-perform Speed Cameras
- Transportation Planning Board Unveils Plan to Track and Tax Drivers
