We previously reported that the speed cameras used in Baltimore County do not meet a requirement under state law that they be certified by an "independent Calibration Laboratory", but were instead only certified by the manufacturer, who has an obvious vested interest in declaring the cameras to be flawless. We sent a letter of inquiry to Baltimore County Police, who were either unwilling or unable to answer most of those questions.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Are You Fighting a Scamera Ticket? Help Us Help You!
We need to hear from people who are fighting or have recently fought speed camera tickets in court. Many ticket recipients have been denied their right to due process at District Court hearings, and we need your help to challenge this.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Hyattsville Council Approves Speed Camera Program
Hyattsville will be the next Prince George's County city to start a speed camera program, after the city council voted to approve speed cameras and to turn most of the city onto a school zone on March 7.
Reactions: |
Friday, March 18, 2011
ACS Created Astroturf Site To Promote Howard County Scameras
It was previously exposed by Patch.com that a marketing firm hired by speed camera contractor ACS State and Local Solutions created a phony "grass Roots" campaign (a practice commonly called "Astroturfing") to promote the expansion of Baltimore County's speed camera program. That effort ultimately proved successful when the county voted to expand the program and renew ACS's profitable contract without a competitive bid. It turns out that ACS has been conducting a similar artificial-turf effort in Howard County for some time.
The Inside Charm City blog discovered a FaceBook page in February,shortly after the Baltimore County site was exposed, which was similar to the one created in Baltimore County maintained by the CEO of KO Public Affairs. The story in Inside Charm City stated that the "Slow Down For Howard County Schools" FaceBook page had "no name, no email address, no website, or no other contact information listed."

Reactions: |
ICC Tolling System Forshadows Tracking of Drivers, Average Speed Cameras
WBAL did an interesting story on the new Inter County Connector (ICC). The ICC is a cashless toll road, the first such road in the state. Drivers on the road must either have an EZPASS (for which Maryland Charges a monthly fee), or else the system uses automated license plate recognition(ALPR) to record the passing vehicle's plate at their entry and exit points and mail the vehicle owners a bill in the mail for the toll plus a $3 service charge.
Reactions: |
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Baltimore County Cameras May Not Meet Certification Requirement
We previously reported that a certain type of speed camera used by the State of Maryland’s ‘SafeZones’ program may not meet a requirement that the be certified by an independent lab. It turns out that another type of camera used by Baltimore County may run afoul of the same restriction, since the device’s annual calibration certificates are issued by the manufacturer rather than by an independent calibration lab.
State law regarding speed cameras says the following
"(4) (i) A speed monitoring system shall undergo an annual calibration check performed by an independent calibration laboratory.
(ii) The independent calibration laboratory shall issue a signed certificate of calibration after the annual calibration check that:
1. Shall be kept on file; and
2. Shall be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding for a violation of this section."
A supporter provided StopBigBrotherMD.Org with copies of Baltimore County’s annual calibration certificates. The certificates show the Make (Manufacturer) of the “G1-ATR” cameras to be “Mesa Engineering”, the same company who issued the certificates, which were signed by Mesa’s VP of Engineering.
StopBigBrotherMD.org wrote to Baltimore County on March 12, asking a number of questions, including among other things what the legal basis for considering the manufacture an ‘independent lab’ is, the credentials for this company to perform such testing, and what type of testing this device was actually subjected to. We received confirmation that our inquiry was received by Baltimore County police, but after two more business days received no answers to any of those questions.
State law regarding speed cameras says the following
"(4) (i) A speed monitoring system shall undergo an annual calibration check performed by an independent calibration laboratory.
(ii) The independent calibration laboratory shall issue a signed certificate of calibration after the annual calibration check that:
1. Shall be kept on file; and
2. Shall be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding for a violation of this section."

StopBigBrotherMD.org wrote to Baltimore County on March 12, asking a number of questions, including among other things what the legal basis for considering the manufacture an ‘independent lab’ is, the credentials for this company to perform such testing, and what type of testing this device was actually subjected to. We received confirmation that our inquiry was received by Baltimore County police, but after two more business days received no answers to any of those questions.
Reactions: |
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
PG County Writes Speed Cameras into Budget
Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker (D) has written a net $4.4million in speed camera revenues into the county's FY2012 budget, according to an article in the Examiner.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ulman To Unveil Howard County Speed Camera Plan
![]() |
Don't worry, you'll soon forget you had due-process rights in the first place |
Before the county can begin using speed cameras, Howard County will need to hold public hearings on the proposed legislation which would then need to be approved by the county council. The county would need to select camera sites in "school zones", which if the model used in Baltimore City and many PG County towns is followed would include creating vast new school zones never previously designated or marked as such, or perhaps even lowering speed limits.
After that the county would need to select a vendor. Candidates would include ACS State and Local Solutions who run's the programs in Montgomery County, Baltimore City, and Baltimore County and the SHA's program (which we recently showed was using cameras that were not independently certified for accuracy). Alternately they could choose Optotraffic/Sigma Space Corporation, whose runs the notoriously inaccurate cameras in Forest Heights and Brentwood. Or the county could try a new player in the state such as photo enforcement company American Traffic Systems, who contributed $1000 to Ulman's campaign in the last election cycle according to the Maryland Campaign finance database.
Speed cameras are now in use in Montgomery County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, a long list of PG County cities, and on several work zones on major interstate highways. A plan to introduce speed cameras in the next door town of Sykesville (Carroll County) was shot down by voters in a referendum.
Concerned citizens can contact the county council to express their views. Click THIS LINK to open an email window, or go to the county website for contact information.
Reactions: |
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Citation Images May Provide Indications of Errors
We previously reported on that certain versions of the Vitronic Poliscan LIDAR speed cameras, contain a recently disclosed problem which can potentially cause them to incorrectly identify which vehicle committed a speeding violation. Poliscans are used by the SHA’s Maryland SafeZones program, which issue freeway workzone tickets, even though the Poliscan systems did not meet a requirement in state law that they have annual calibration certificates issued by an “independent calibration laboratory”
While the US versions of the systems have apparently never been tested for this possibility, there are circumstances described in the operating manual for the devices which could reveal if these errors are in fact occurring. Citation review procedures are described on pages 95 through 102 of the manual. The manual lists several conditions which must be met in order for images to be “valid as evidence”. The Poliscan is NOT certified automatically distinguish between multiple vehicles, but rather the citation reviewers are required to verify that the correct vehicle has been selected for the violation. The Poliscan overlays a rectangular template on the citation images which a reviewer is supposed to use to verify the selection
“At least one front wheel (in case of front measurement) respectively one rear wheel (in case of rear measurement) and/or the license plate of a vehicle must at least in part be visible within the template. Moreover, the lower edge of the template frame must be beneath the wheels. Otherwise, the photo must be rejected as evidence.”
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)
- Baltimore County Unable to Answer Questions About ...
- Are You Fighting a Scamera Ticket? Help Us Help You!
- Hyattsville Council Approves Speed Camera Program
- ACS Created Astroturf Site To Promote Howard Count...
- ICC Tolling System Forshadows Tracking of Drivers,...
- Baltimore County Cameras May Not Meet Certificatio...
- PG County Writes Speed Cameras into Budget
- Ulman To Unveil Howard County Speed Camera Plan
- Citation Images May Provide Indications of Errors
- ► 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)
- ► 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
