Revenue from Speed Cameras in MD Falling


That's the title of an article in today's (June 10, 2014) Washington Post newspaper. It says MD is a leader in the use of speed cameras in the country. Main problem is the perception that the cameras are used as revenue enhancers. Can't be!!!

The take in a number of local jurisdictions is falling. In some it doesn't cover the cost of the contracts. Aw Gee!!

People are complying & it's cutting off their revenue stream.

Must be due to the POI Factory - you bad people!


Same may apply to red light camera revenue

FZbar wrote:


People are complying & it's cutting off their revenue stream.

Must be due to the POI Factory - you bad people!


Of course they will always deny that the cameras are intended for revenue generation. When I lived in Toledo OH there was an article in either Toledo or Detroit Free Press about exactly that, and how Redflex gets something like 80 or 90% of revenue so both they and the city win on every ticket.

When the Free Press people went to ask how many tickets had been caught by city employees / vehicles (of course this should be public record, right?) they were told by the city they were unable to say, and the Free Press would have to ask Reflex. So off they went, and were jerked around for a long time, being told it is not public record information, then being told there is no way for them to tell, then later being told that it could only be found if they wrote a custom report at some significant cost if Free Press was willing to pay. Of course we know that is garbage, the camera sends data to a computer, that computer almost certainly has an SQL based database, a simple SQL query, or a little bit of Cognos or other query software will allow all kinds of queries with no additional coding.

So you can bet every city vehicle, and probably a number of city employees are exempted from the red light fines.

Reduced Speeding = Reduced Revenue

Let's see... revenues from speed cameras are down in many Maryland municipalities because fewer tickets are being issued.

Sounds like people are speeding less in the areas with cameras. Isn't that the intended purpose?

The revenue is down only in

The revenue is down only in small town areas. Overall, it continues to increase & the State continues to substantially increase the number of cameras. It is also true that MD is renegotiating fees with the camera operators so that, in those locations, the State doesn't run a deficit either by reducing operating costs OE moving the cameras to locations which are higher money raisers.


Tickets on City Vehicles

I was a Supervisor for an NYPD detective unit in the 90's and can only speak to NYC red light system. This was the first generation of RLC's installed in the city. Whenever one of our unmarked cars went through a red light, I would get the printout and had to write a report explaining each infraction. A few times the department would not accept my reason and wanted my office to pay the ticket. The ticketing agency for NYC knows exactly how many summonses were issued to city and government vehicles. The newer systems are probably more sophisticated, too. I am sure that other municipalities have similar capabilities.


"Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground." Theodore Roosevelt///Garmin Nuvi 2555LMT, Garmin Nuvi 2455LMT, Garmin Edge 605

It's a good thing

People are now driving slower and obey the law to cause the revenue goes down. It is a good thing for all roadway users. Bad for the companies putting up the cameras. Let's keeping doing good things to drive those traffic camera companies out of business.