Baltimore City has suspended camera enforcement

I usually don't run red lights for personal reasons but sometimes, if a light is malfunctioning, I might run it. I obviously don't want to do that at an intersection where a red light camera is!

Also, do you know how much paperwork is involved for volunteer firefighters to get out of an RLC ticket out of their district? If it happens in my own district, no big deal as the cop reviewing the ticket will throw it out. But if I am out of district, if they can see my lights on, on the picture, it still needs a signature from an officer. If they can't see my lights on (due to sunlight, short exposure time, etc) then it's even more paperwork as sometimes they'll ask you to PROVE that you were responding to an emergency. This get especially dodgy when you are responding to the firehouse to get equipment, but end up being cancelled for a false alarm. In that case, there is no evidence that you were actually responding to the firehouse since you never got there to make roll call.

The alert allows me to get to the intersection, and either trigger both flashes while I'm still partially behind the line, or slow down to such a speed that I won't trigger the camera.

Angela -
I sent you an email on Monday 9/9/13 with some info and several attachments. Had not heard back thru email or on this discussion forum and wanted to be certain you received it. If so, hope that info was useful.
As I noted in the email, a number of locations/intersections I checked erroneously alert to BOTH Red Light -AND- Speed Cams when in fact only a Red Light Cameras where installed in that area.
.
I did notice that you removed the Baltimore City listings from the most recent POI file update, as you said you would.
As I stated in my email, I would prefer to keep the listings loaded in my GPS..... even though Balt City's System is de-activated for now.
My reasons are two-fold:
1. it allows me to double check the existing locations to note any errors -- a few of which I noted and sent you.
2. the other reason is that I want to stay familiar with the locations and take notice whether due to compact proximity the alerts are for my actual location & direction of travel.
.
Last item, I started a new Topic thread in this forum for Baltimore COUNTY "Safety Cam" listings. Their system IS still active.
My posting lists the current RLC & Speed cam locations in Baltimore County. I also provided the contact info for the person managing their traffic system.

As I indicated Monday afternoon in my last post on this thread, we decided to remove the Baltimore city cameras after contacting the city’s Department of Transportation. The cameras have been inactive for several months, and the city still doesn’t have a timeframe for when their red light and speed camera programs might resume. In past years, we’ve done the same thing in similar situations (e.g., Houston TX).

We appreciate your offer to help with Baltimore, and perhaps Jonathan can prepare a special set of add-on files for the inactive Baltimore locations that can be loaded along with the currently published files. He’ll contact you tomorrow via email on this.

Baltimore County locations should still be available in the published files. As I mentioned in my response to the thread you started on that, those locations will be crosschecked this week.

~Angela

The cameras are still on the poles and the city knows it's budget is really being affected.

I tell you what the fuss is about.
Take a good look at everything in your home or around it most likely came from a truck.
Taking off at a light with 80k pounds of weight behind you and from light to light is 20 yards most likely i get a ticket. Because i cant get thru the light in time.My trailer is 53ft and tractor is 15ft long.
Coming to light at 25 mph if twenty yards from light all i can do is run the yellow light or red.
It takes 312ft (empty) to stop tractor and trailer.
But who cares were just in everyones way.

This is probably not true of all cameras, but around here, by state law they capture two photos, one showing the vehicle totally behind the stop line with the signal red and a second image taken a second or so later showing that the driver continued into and was proceeding through the intersection with the signal still red.

Seem to me that it would not matter about the length of the trailer unless the first picture showed the tractor behind the stop line with the light being red.

I dont care about the cameras,pictures or lines.
I was referring to length times distance at dead stop plus the weight 80,000 lb factor.
I have seen lights go green then in 4 seconds go yellow hmm...In the court of law I can and will prove my case.
Evidently you dont drive a tractor or trailer so have a nice day.....end of conversation.

when you hit the brakes how long would you estimate it takes for air brakes to actually engage??

The first thing we learned about driving big trucks. If you can't either get into the intersection while the light is still yellow, or come to a complete stop in the time you see the yellow to the time the light goes red, then you are going too fast. Period. End of story.

Your math is also a bit off. Assume you are the average driver with a 0.75 second reaction time.

At 25 mph, you are traveling at 36.6 feet per second. So if you see the light is yellow, and you decide to keep going anyways, 4 seconds later, you will be 146 feet from your current location. If you see the yellow and decide to stop, assuming a 80k lb truck, your truck will come to a stop 74 feet from where you were when the light first turned yellow. That's a 72 foot margin for when you could either decide to top or decide to keep going (notice I said keep going and not gun it) and be ok both ways.

The length of your trailer is actually irrelevant since yo measure from the front of the tractor in both cases. Once yo are across the stop line, you get clearance of the intersection in pretty much any municipality in the US (I can think of one exception off the top of my head). If you are 20 yards from the light, that puts yo at 80 feet. If you are going 25 mph, you will be able to enter the intersection on yellow at about 2.18 seconds after the light first went yellow (Assuming a 4 second light, that is plenty of time to get into the intersection). If you decide to stop, you will stop 6 feet behind the stop line. Take your pick, either way you choose it's is legal and you won't end up with a ticket.

"It takes 312ft (empty) to stop tractor and trailer."

You really need to get your brakes and tires checked if that's the case. Short of being on ice, there is no way it takes 312 feet to stop an empty tractor trailer at 25 miles per hour. An 80,000 lb truck going at about 57 miles per hour takes about 57 mph takes that much space to stop. I don't have the exact chart on me, but even driving a tanker that is 2/3 of the way full (the hardest vehicle to drive IMO because of the fact that stopping distances INCREASE as the weight decreases because of the fact that the fluid can move which shifts your momentum as you stop to keep going forward) which weighs about 30,000 lbs and has a momentum shift factor at 60 mph can stop within 312 feet. I'll admit I've never tried it since for all practical purposes we only drive a tanker when it's 2/3 full for training (usually you have time such that you can fill it up to full before you leave, or drain some of the water out so it's not sitting at 2/3 fill), but when it's 2/3 of the way full I have taken it up to 50 mph before with a stopping distance of less than 312 feet.

If it really takes your truck 312 feet to stop when it's empty and you're going at about 25 mph, you really need to get that truck off the road...

I don't like the cameras because of the manipulative ways they are used. In GA there are rules in place for their use but are often abused with no way to report it. Due process for some is a valid reason as it is your right is to confront your accuser which is impossible since you cannot cross examine a microchip.

You are right on that point. Cameras are cash cow. Contractors maintain and take cut. County gets cash for "perks"

Ok, I see the issue now as to how you got such a large number for an empty trailer. I don't know why you multiplied your trailer's length by the distance. Length and distance are both measured in feet. So what you are saying is that it takes you 300 and some odd *SQUARE FEET* to stop. That makes no sense at all! You can't multiply length by length and get length. If you multiply one length by another length, you get an area.

I agree with this sentiment. If used properly they are a great tool for increasing safety and revenue. But they are often abused. Working in a (relatively) small suburban area, it's a lot easier to hold people accountable. If our engineering department (which does roads) were abusing the use of cameras, there would be lots of complaints at the city council meeting. And if no changes were made, then the council-members and/or mayor would be replaced by someone who would fix the abuse of cameras. Now I know that not everyone lives in a smaller community to have this much influence, but it still stands. If it's a big enough issue in your community that the cameras are being abused, then people will act to make changes. If you're in an urban area where people are being shot on a daily basis, you might have more trouble making traffic camera abuse an issue.

I do believe that our due process system is a bit screwed up though. You actually can confront a microchip and investigate it to make sure it was functioning properly. To me, the cameras are actually more reliable than say a police officer. If a PO gets you for running a red light but you were sure your front bumper had cleared the stop line as the light turned red, there is no evidence to back you up, and the police officer, unless he was standing on the stopline and watching your car as it passed, didn't have the best vantage point. This to me is the equivalent of allowing NFL refs to use video to see if a player stepped out of bounds or not.

But the problem I have is that if you win a case, you still have to pay court costs. I had a case of a citation issued to me that I didn't have proof of insurance when I was driving. Well, I actually did but it was in a form that was not common in that state and the police officer did not accept it as proof of insurance. To be honest, I would probably have just paid the small fine but I need a clean driving record for my work, so I had to drag myself down to the court date. And the kicker was that the judge dismissed the case within a minute of it starting (the judge said it was obviously valid proof) but I still had to pay $40 in court costs. I like the system in Europe a lot better where the state bears the court costs (and in some cases even attorney fees for opposing counsel) if they lose a case.

It is your right to not like cameras. And you have a right to free speech - to say anything you wish. However, if one wants their speech to have a positive impact, it is better if it is accurate. What exactly does "often" mean to you? Is it many times : frequently"? If so, what support do you have for such an assertion in Georgia?

Why would you claim there is no way to report it?

You are not being accused by a microchip. You are being accused by an officer who reviews several pictures taken of your vehicle - one showing the vehicle totally behind the stop line with the signal red and a second image taken a second or so later showing that the vehicle continued into and was proceeding through the intersection with the signal still red. This would be a civil infraction.

According to Wikipedia:

Like

Just ask how that worked out in Baltimore. Be sure you ask the people who got speeding tickets while the photos clearly showed them setting still waiting for the red light to change. Since they were behind the line, at least they did not get red light tickets also.

Baltimore is broken in many ways and the situation with the cameras was just one part. In Baltimore's case the photos were NOT reviewed by an officer, but the contractor even though state law stated they had to be. Citations were issued while the "reviewing officer" was not at work, on sick leave and numerous other instances where the officer's signature was electronically attached to the citation sent by the contractor.

I will look for a link to something like you are describing in Baltimore, but it would help me if you would furnish it.

I will look for
"Speeding tickets while stopped at a red light"

Just to be clear though, my comments were about red light cameras and the fact that an officer had reviewed two pictures - one with the car behind the stop line with the signal red and a second image taken a second or so later showing that the vehicle continued into and was proceeding through the intersection with the signal still red.

signing off with out looking is probably a lot more common than most think, check this link http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10970856/

http://www.neatorama.com/2012/12/16/Speeding-Ticket-for-an-I...

remove all money making cameras from all cities.. such a rip-off to install these cameras on name of safety..

Bob, you beat me to it. I was responding to another post before going back and verifying that this incident clearly happened but as far as I can tell was an isolated, however egregious, occurrence.

zeaflal was clearly indicating that there were multiple instances and I did not remember that.

The Baltimore Sun did quite a series on this which is why the program was suspended.

oh boy : (

the fox is in charge of the henhouse. The people that control the timing of the lights which can be manipulated have every incentive to generate more money by shortening the time of the yellow light and I'm sure there are several tricks that can be done that we don't know about.
Who's to say the timing of the lights isn't manipulated at will in some cities. It's not out of the realm of possibility the length of the yellow can be manipulated.

Ya know, whether you like red light cameras or not, they result in your not being able to face your accuser.

We have seen actual evidence that the RLC vendors have photoshopped photos to improve their revenues. In San Diego the RLC vendor reduced the yellow light time below the minimum allowed by law, again to improve revenues.

That's just wrong.

I have no problem seeing a sworn police officer in court where he can testify as to my wrongdoing. I can ask him questions. He has to say he saw it and it was a violation. He has to say it under oath.

When a private company tickets me on thin evidence where they have a business incentive to send as many tickets as possible, that's just too fraught with potential problems.

I don't want to live in a society where that goes on, so I am against automated enforcement of any kind.

This is another lowering of standards, and it pervades our society today. Most people don't notice it but I have been and more are waking up.

The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".

Note that this Confrontation Clause, as it is known, applies to "criminal prosecutions". Tickets given for red light running, whether by a camera or a police officer, are civil matters.

The "accuser" is the jurisdiction - not the camera or the photographs.

This is correct--even if this were criminal, they would still be ok since the officer and camera data files serve as evidence for the accuser (the state, or city, etc). If you were making the argument that you can't confront your accuser because it's on film, then you would be also making the argument that if someone robbed a bank, got away with it, but the bank camera got a picture of him and of his car, then you couldn't charge him later because he can't confront the bank's cameras!!!

Let's assume that speeding were criminal for a second... You can confront the accuser--but that is different from the right to cross-examine a witness. Witnesses serve as evidence in supporting (or refuting) the accuser's (in a criminal case) claim that a law was violated. You have the right to challenge evidence brought against you (cross-examining the police officer, challenging the validity of the camera data files, challenging the accuracy of the speed gun), the right to present your own evidence (a passenger in your car that can attest that the light was green and no law was broken, a video from your dash cam that shows the light was green, a memo from the camera company requiring a firmware update that the city has not performed), the right to an affirmative defense (Yes, I ran the red light, but there was an ambulance behind me directing me to enter the intersection, there was police officer waving me through, I was driving a fire truck to the scene of a fire), or the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law itself (the cameras are only taking pictures of cars with Jewish Stars on their bumpers).

Why is the penalty so different for the exact same infraction?
RLC = Only a fine. Violator could be cited a hundred times a month. Just pay the fine.
Police officer observes the same violator 4 times. = Violator loses his license to drive.
Maybe it is not about safety. Or maybe it is about rules of evidence after all.

jgermann, I realize you have consistently quoted this kind of stuff, I just disagree.

That they have made and used an appropriate level of lawbreaking to charge the accused under should be no surprise to anyone. They want the revenues and it's too inconvenient and expensive to use the real system with actual police officers to charge them.

I think charging anyone without following all the steps required, and making an "infraction" law to facilitate that is the problem here.

These "civil vs criminal" distinctions are ridiculous legal shenanigans and nowhere is it more visible that in the illegal immigration issue that we are discussing on the news all the time today.

Because immigration violations are "civil" the government does an anemic job of securing the border from those that would cross over illegally, but after that they can live in our country with nearly complete impunity.

That is just ridiculous, if you can't cross over the border legally how can you rent an apartment, walk down the street, or anything else seemingly without it being illegal? This only makes sense to those that practice "half thinking".

There, now I have hijacked the thread. There'll be hell to pay. Heh.

I find your insistence that one has a right to "face your accuser" in every instance - whether criminal or civil - very interesting.

I will start a new thread
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/41222
in which we can continue the discussion

to west Virgina 45 minutes away and not peskie rules and a lot less "laws", also there is horrible schools and your life expected is 4 years less and chances of kids completing college is 54 %. careful what you wish for!!

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/2013/10/29/maryland-man-says-...

In the latest twist, Baltimore City is apparently dropping their current speed camera vender. An article in Sunday’s Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-... says the City is terminating their contract with Brekford Corp because after 11 months Brekford is still unable to get the system working correctly.

City Councilman William H. Cole IV was quoted as saying that the city should consider doing away with the cameras permanently. Unfortunately City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young still seems to be looking for the revenue stream.

The previous system that was operated by Xerox State and Local Solutions was shut down after the Sun Paper found frequent and significant errors. The article says that at one point Baltimore had over 150 cameras and was the largest camera system in North America.

AWESOME NEWS!!!!