The Trouble with Speed Cameras
Kids in Montgomery County, MD have apparently discovered how to fool the speed camera in front of their school. The kids print out the targeted license plates on glossy paper, using fonts that are close to the ones the State of Maryland uses, paste the paper over the real plate and zoom through the camera’s field of vision. The camera takes a picture of the plate and records the speed.
This seems to be one of the many new systems that take a picture of the plate only (others will take a picture of the car or the face of the driver as well). But even if this system is taking a picture of the car too, it is probably a safe bet that the company retrieving the pictures and sending out the tickets is a private entity with no incentives for accuracy (as in comparing the description of the car in the registration with the one in the picture) of the tickets they are sending out.
I really understand why people want cameras monitoring certain public spaces (I don’t like the cameras much at all, but understand why people think that they are useful), but when you are using them for law enforcement purposes it is really important to do this thing in a way that you aren’t punked at the first opportunity by a bunch of kids with nothing better to do.
Tags: Crime
It is for just this reason that the Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser.
That is why they make the camera tickets a civil rather than a criminal violation – to get around the Constitution.
It is a mistake to give the business to the profit-driven private companies.
“It is for just this reason that the Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser. ”
I could be wrong, but I believe the accused still has the right to contest the alleged offense in court.
“It is a mistake to give the business to the profit-driven private companies.”
Truth! Check out Dewey Beach. Many of their criminal violations are now “civil”. It’s like.. as long as they get their fine money, everything’s cool.
The people of the UK have an interesting technique for dealing with speed cameras…
I blogged about this issue, along with red light cameras, just yesterday.
-farkinga
Thanks, farkinga! That was an amazing site your pointed to with the destruction of the UK cameras. (And everyone reading this should click through to see this site) I’ve got to believe that those pictures are just the tip of the iceburg, and that there is enough revenue in the operation of these cameras to allow the UK powers that be to just keep spending the money to replace these things. Incredible, really.
My Father-in-Law has been talking about the cameras and shortened yellow lights in Wilmington. I’ll have to check on the status of that issue.
I wonder if the destruction of these cameras is criminal or civil?
What’s needed is a directional EMP device or HERF gun.
I’ll check with the Acme Novelty Company…
If used appropriately, the cameras can be an effective measure in making some stop lights safer.
Here in Delaware, they placed three cameras, one in each county, at the three most dangerous intersections. In Seaford, it just happened to be the intersection in front of Walmart.
After the introduction of the red light camera, the amount of accidents in that intersection decreased dramatically, and as someone who travels through that intersection up to 15 times a day, I appreciate not having to worry about some hopped up redneck slamming into the side of my car because he has to rush home and tend to his chicken house.
The problem is when municipalities become greedy, and tinker with the camera and the light to increase the number of fines. Instead of meeting it’s safety purpose, it is retooled as a revenue stream.
Power corrupts.
Perhaps we may yet get an automated police state.
Congratulations to the kids for messing up the system.
I haven’t noticed a shortened yellow at the intersections in Wilmington with the cameras. I have wondered if the cameras get turned off during bad weather. There have been a couple of occasions when I have gone through the yellow at Woodlawn and Pennsylvania in icy conditions — when sliding through the intersection anyway it just seemed smarter to just buzz right though.
I wonder if the destruction of these cameras is criminal or civil?
If they can make it both, I’d bet it is — criminal for messing up a government enforcement operation and civil for the private company who is supposed to be paid from the tickets they send out.
As a resident of Wilmington I despise the red light cameras. They are nothing more than a cash cow for the city government.
If you should get caught running a red light camera it is a civil offense and a conviction goes on your credit report!!!! That’s right home boys and girls and so do any convictions from L & I.
I don’t want to bore you w/the details of my experience w/a red light ticket.
Suffice it to say the woman collecting the fines was seated at the same table as the deputy city solicitor (an unbelieveable bitchy woman)….that’s correct: they were collecting the $$$$$ right there inside the court room.
Oh, yeah, and another thing in order to ‘appeal’ your ticket you must first inform the court (in writing) exactly what is your defense!!!!!
For what it’s worth I beat my ticket but that doesn’t make me feel any better about being abused by the system.
I wonder if the destruction of these cameras is criminal or civil? Liberalgeek
It would be criminal. One approach might be to rig a can of spray paint to a bamboo pole with a string to operate the valve. The lens could be painted over.
This would disable rather than destroy so the prankster would have a clear conscience.
The issue should revolve around the timing of the amber period. If the timing is set to maximize revenue collection, then some rebuke to authority is appropriate.
Can’t we just have Liz stand under the camera and talk about the Middle East until the lens cracks?
One or two newly installed Wilmington street cameras were disabled using paintball guns last year.
#12 – too funny.
I imagine it’s a criminal action to destroy one of these cameras, as far as the law is concerned. However, it seems like there’s a dis-congruence between the spirit and the letter of the law, in this case.
Obviously, the point of installing red light cameras, or speed cameras, is not to cause harm to people… and yet, that is what seems to happen, in certain cases. The camera, which is public property, has the effect of increasing collisions, meaning the camera causes the destruction of private property.
In a ends-justify-the-means framework, a person who is injured in an intersection with a camera might claim a sort of self-defense argument if they destroy the camera later… and on that basis, another person who destroys the camera before they are injured might also make a self-defense argument.
So, if it is a matter of self defense, then although the law might consider destruction of public property to be criminal, the majority of people (or a jury of peers) might consider the action to be downright civil.
…or something like that… 🙂
Obviously, the point of installing red light cameras, or speed cameras, is not to cause harm to people… and yet, that is what seems to happen, in certain cases. The camera, which is public property, has the effect of increasing collisions, meaning the camera causes the destruction of private property.
Huh? Sorry, I don’t understand how cameras harm private property. I know I’m being dense.
@nemski – It’s all good.
Private property is harmed by increasing the occurrence of rear-end collisions as yellow lights are shortened. The cars, in this case, are the private property, which would otherwise not have been damaged had the yellow light not been shortened, and had drivers not been scared into slamming on the brakes.