Post User Polls

Legality of speed cameras

You rip open the envelope and there it is: Another darned photo-enforcement traffic ticket.

The photograph, the zoom-in on the tag, it's you, baby. Your car. Two weeks ago. Forty-one in a 30-mph zone.

It's from your favorite municipality. You can pay $40 now or $80 later. You can also contest it, the infraction letter says, and that's a laugh. You remember seeing that the folks who went down to fight their automated tickets in Montgomery County got convicted 99.7 percent of the time. Like a Soviet election, you think, a sham, a joke, and you, the chump in the parade.

There's something that doesn't smell right about these tickets, but you're not quite sure what.

Read more in today's article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  November 5, 2009; 10:00 AM ET  | Category:  Local , National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Does PETA go too far? | Next: Safety in the workplace

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Evidently, to speed by a school should be no inescapable offense. A purely objective measure is "injust."

Speeders don't like the machines because they can't talk to them, "smooth things out," fraternize, and flash the PBA badge and dues receipt before the officer. In court, the photographic evidence defies the "wink and nod" approach that allows well-to-do white speeders to get reduction of points or penalties. Speeding violations, they feel, ought to apply only to "those people" who meet other standards of guilt, such as faulty registration, absence of a PBA badge, or some non-local appearance or accent.

Posted by: jkoch2 | November 5, 2009 11:19 AM

The poll results are largely the result of the passionate anti-speed camera introduction and biased wording of the question. Why such propaganda on speed cameras?

Is driving safely and legally so intolerable?

Posted by: Hewitt1 | November 5, 2009 11:19 AM

Although I am not a fan of these cameras I feel it is more important for our police officers to be dealing with real crime and emergencies instead of sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun.

Posted by: nperazich | November 5, 2009 11:40 AM

I received a citation in Tucson due to an unintentional violation of a yellow/red light caught on camera. I am sixty-nine and had never before had a moving citation. The problem with this intersection (Valenica and Nogales Highway) is that traffic traveling at legal speed, with cars close behind, cannot safely stop in time before being faced with a dilemma: proceed into and through the just-lighted yellow, thereby risking being caught in the intersection on a red, or risk a rear-ender and a potential pile-up by slamming on the brakes. The intersection is so notorious that drivers have taken to avoiding it altogether, thereby further congesting other routes. I was obliged to attend "defensive driving school" at a cost of $244 to satisfy my citation. The excellent instructor admitted he himself had been caught in a different camera-equipped intersection...and frankly advised avoiding such intersections altogether as the safest policy.

Posted by: wcurmudgeon | November 5, 2009 11:42 AM

I just don't get it -- why do so many think it's OK to break the law? Speeding is illegal. A vehicle CAN BE A WEAPON, when used improperly.

Posted by: lcd1 | November 5, 2009 11:48 AM

The police department is there to protect and serve the community, not provide a revenue source for the government. These cameras are not about safety and may even make the roads less safe. They are about profit.

We are getting an extra tax levied on the tax paying citizens who are either going to or coming from work (where you already give at least 33% of your money to taxes) or going to the store (where you will pay sales tax) or getting gas (where you will pay a gas tax).

How much money is enough for the government?

Posted by: TheSquire | November 5, 2009 12:00 PM

I love the commenters who frame this as a cut-and-dry issue of driving safely versus driving recklessly (which they seem to generously frame as 70 mph over while intoxicated in a school zone with nuns present). If you're not all for these cameras, then you're surely for reckless child-and-nun endangerers!

The speed camera issue is less about enabling would-be reckless child-and-nun endangerers and more about coming home one evening to an envelope containing an anonymous still photo of your vehicle and an allegation that you were doing 41 mph in a 30 mph on some anonymous stretch of road like "N 3660 W SMITH BLVD" some four weeks ago.

And you haven't the foggiest idea whether you were or you weren't even in the greater DC area four weeks ago, much less whether you were doing the posted limit.

And you haven't the foggiest idea how you would even begin to contest this, even if you knew for a fact that you going well under the posted speed limit at that time.

And if you don't timely concede, the price of the fine doubles. And if you chose to contest and lose, the price of the fine doubles. And 99.7% lose. So....

But you're still "free" to contest.

And how would you contest? Prove the camera is broken? Where would you even begin? I often wonder this because I know for a fact that the camera on Connecticut Ave. in Chevy Chase is horribly out of whack. Cars travel at an average speed of about 20 mph in a 30 mph zone, yet every morning, the speed camera flashes like Lindsey Lohan is coming down the red carpet. It would violate a fundamental law of physics for any car to be travelling faster than 20 mph while every other car travels no faster than 20 mph, so how could a properly functioning camera possibly go off?

And how exactly would you challenge that? By risking the doubling penalties to claim that your memory (now 7 weeks old? 10 weeks old?) is right and the camera is wrong? The procedures (doubling penalties, four-week delayed notice) are designed precisely to deter you from challenging. The whole process more closely resembles a shakedown than it does an honest-to-God judicial process.

So, to you simpletons among the camera-cheering crowd, please spare us your histrionics. It's not about a wild pack of would-be reckless child-and-nun endangerers just chomping at the bit to speed all over God's green earth. It's about having an honest opportunity to vindicate yourself if wrongfully accused. It's about having a government that honors and encourages due process. And it's about finding a happy medium between a society goverened by the rule of law and a permanent surveillance state.

Posted by: dsk36 | November 5, 2009 12:16 PM

DSK36

WELL SAID!!!!

Posted by: torrey151 | November 5, 2009 12:31 PM

They can be legal, but the company who installs them should not get a cut of the speeding fines.

Posted by: patinlaurel | November 5, 2009 12:40 PM

Super well said DSK36.

Posted by: tylerdurden1 | November 5, 2009 12:42 PM

DSK36 eloquently summarizes the case against speed cameras. Okay, pro-camera crowd, can any of you make an argument that is any more cogent that repetitions of "truisms" ad nauseam?

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | November 5, 2009 12:57 PM

Anything that captures law breakers is fine by me!! If you don't want a speeding ticket, don't speed!

Posted by: giniajim | November 5, 2009 1:02 PM

The only way that cameras should be legal is to remove the financial incentive from the hands of the local goverments. There should be a requirement for 8 hours of community service for any speeding camera violaters. Until then, you, me and everyone will only see cameras as serving only one purpose...generation of revenue.

Posted by: Digitalman08 | November 5, 2009 1:09 PM

I didn't mind so much when it was just in school zones, but now they're everywhere! If the speed limit drops suddenly from 50 mph to 30 mph expect a camara right there.

Posted by: dreamcanal | November 5, 2009 1:10 PM

See Google for plenty of examples of municipalities that (illegally) shortened their yellow light times to increase camera ticket revenue... and were caught.

This is one of many reasons the cameras should go.

Here's one to start you off: http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Posted by: thermowax | November 5, 2009 1:11 PM

There are so many problems with these devices that one hardly knows where to begin.
Lest I be dismissed as sort of radical, speed and red-light running crazed fanatic, let me point out that I am a former police officer and retired career federal agent.
It strikes me, first of all, that some of the same people who resist health care reform, regardless of its success in Europe, got the idea to install these contraptions from Germans.
Secondly, this isn't about safety - it is about generating revenue. If it were about safety, we would actually make people truly learn how to safely operate a motor vehicle, not just aim it and know when to stop for a school bus. Talking on the phone or texting would also be forbidden but we all know how that's going.
The presumption of innocence is the basis of American justice. Most jurisdictions get around this blatant disregard of due process by deeming these citations "civil matters". In that case that makes the fines tantamount to a user tax. Anybody having a "tea party" on this issue?
Aggressive enforcement of speed limits has had the effect of making it the only traffic law anyone seems to be aware of. Americans are atrocious drivers who pick their lanes at random,tailgate, yack on the phone, stare into their GPS, text, read the paper, (insert your own unbelievable driving outrage here).
In the end, speed enforcement is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is quick, easy and profitable but does little to make Americans safer drivers. It does help out with the budget, though.

Posted by: bwgunia | November 5, 2009 1:17 PM

What a sham of a poll. Slanted by WaPo's introduction. Sad

Posted by: Towards_Light | November 5, 2009 1:19 PM


Interesting way to word the question:

'Should speed cameras be legal?'

Well, obviously, speeding is never legal, so how can a speed camera be declared "illegal"? Speed cameras are only necessary because so many people drive carelessly, are unwilling to devote proper attention to what their doing, and never want to be accountable if they cause damage or injury. The 65% tabulation against proves this.

Posted by: kenhyde | November 5, 2009 1:26 PM

The problem is when they are used as speed traps (as DREAMCANAL implied). Your cruising at a posted speed of 50 mph one minute and the eit drops down to 30 mph with little or no advance warning or signage. DC in nortorious for this. The way they pimp off of their neighbors in Maryland is shameful.

Posted by: PracticalIndependent | November 5, 2009 1:36 PM

The cameras are set up in the most obvious and likely places for speeding, at the bottom of hills and in long open straightaways, and therefore are about income, not safety. They are not in the most dangerous areas... I think they also can increase the number of rear-end accidents, given that drivers in front often brake or slow down when they are surprised by the cameras. Not only am I not convinced they improve safety, I think they may be contributory to greater accidents. That is a study I would like to see as well. It need be only one question: "Have the number of rear end insurance claims gone up at the location of the cameras?"
They are just another form of personal encroachment and of greater financial pressures on the working man.

Posted by: shayes1 | November 5, 2009 1:48 PM

The wording of the poll question is awkward. I'm opposed to most speed cameras, but not because I think they are or should be considered illegal.

Posted by: jwind | November 5, 2009 1:51 PM

No. Cameras deny you the right to confront your accuser under the Bill of Rights.

Inherently unamerican.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | November 5, 2009 2:02 PM

It seems to me that I read somewhere that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” How do you cross-examine a dang digital camera? There was NO witness, and if the data went from one medium to another trough a wireless connection, there’s no chain of physical evidence at all.

Posted by: Whatzizname | November 5, 2009 2:05 PM

My opposition to speed cameras has nothing to do with speeding, the dangers of, or the ability to talk your way out of a ticket. In fact, I have never received a speeding ticket - automated or otherwise. My opposition rests only on the legality of automated law enforcement. With cameras, you lose the ability to face your accuser. The photograph is not part of a case. A human is not taking the picture. The circumstances surrounding the picture is not considered (for instance, marked police cars are ticketed automatically for speeding even with lights & sirens going). The ticket is issued to the car owner, not the driver who is speeding. What this all amounts to is a failure to follow due process. Safety or effectiveness of the speed cameras is irrelevant; automated law enforcement is unconstitutional.

Posted by: DCCubefarm | November 5, 2009 2:10 PM

With today's technology authorities can just about put you any place at any time they want to. The advent of greater computing power, more advanced computer networking, and database advancement means you can expect less and less privacy and an even greater chance these devices could be used to create a bogus case against a an individual.

Posted by: msmart2u | November 5, 2009 2:13 PM

DSK36: "The speed camera issue is less about enabling would-be reckless child-and-nun endangerers and more about coming home one evening to an envelope containing an anonymous still photo of your vehicle and an allegation that you were doing 41 mph in a 30 mph on some anonymous stretch of road like 'N 3660 W SMITH BLVD' some four weeks ago."

That "anonymous stretch" is probably someone's neighborhood, and the residents are tire of you sailing by at 41mph. You know full well that it is too expensive to place a cop their every rush hour, and would rather continue to zip to work or pleasure with impunity, possibly blabbing on the cell phone and unaware of the speed limits. Unless you live in a high-rise with set-back, would you want traffic passing your house at 41mph? How about next to your kid's playground?

So pay your fine and obey the limits. No need to contest. You were speeding.

Posted by: jkoch2 | November 5, 2009 2:17 PM

In principle, I see nothing wrong with automated enforcement of this type. There is no "right to privacy" on a public street.

I'm very concerned, however, about how often (or even whether) the radar devices these systems employ to monitor speed are calibrated for accuracy. Texas DPS procedures, for example, require officers to do so at the beginning of each patrol shift (whether or not they actually do).

Many factors can affect radar guns' performance and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if more than a few of them -- especially those that have been in place for a few years -- weren't off by a considerable margin.

Posted by: TheProFromDover | November 5, 2009 2:22 PM

It’s clear through comments that for many this is not a binary decision. It’s rather more a decision about how speed cameras are implemented. This is where citizen's efforts should focus. Simple steps for camera placement:

1. Not within .5 miles of a decrease in speed limit.

2. Any location within a school zone but with pavement markings to prove the violator was within the zone when the speed was read and the image was captured.

3. Set to ticket only at or above the average speed violation for the entire municipality based on long-term historical data. I.E. no more sensitive to speeding than actual officers are to violators on average.

With these simple rules it would be difficult to identify how speed cameras differ in their enforcement of the law from actual officers.

Posted by: EdS2 | November 5, 2009 2:30 PM

For all those “law” abiding citizens who think speed cameras are a simple matter of obeying the law, the whole idea of speed limits is completely arbitrary. It’s the unfairness of the government to decide by whim and against all common sense that an artificially low speed should be a matter of law and that punishment must be meted when violated that is the core of this argument for so many. In many cases government is simply kowtowing to the loudest complainers, the Neighborhood Fearful. (The truth is, when you’re standing still on the sidewalk, every car, bike, roller blader and cavorting dog is speeding by comparison). Authorities are also mostly interested in easy solutions (and money).

Speed itself is essentially a commodity: Users travel at speed that the marketplace of road design, width and quality dictate. On a road like Conn. Ave. in the duchy of Chevy Chase, a road that is a six-lane state highway, it is a manipulation of the market to set the speed at 30 when the road was designed for safe speeds of up to 40-45. Likewise, drivers who are going 55+ on that road are violating the market to an extreme and ought to be punished. Nobody has any argument against punishing speeders. It’s the definition of who is a dangerous driver and who isn’t that is arguable, and the camera defenders simple hide behind arbitrariness and platitudes and really tick off anyone who believes in fairness—which is most Americans, if not most Marylanders.

Posted by: Legationer | November 5, 2009 2:41 PM

"They can be legal, but the company who installs them should not get a cut of the speeding fines.
Posted by: patinlaurel | November 5, 2009 12:40 PM "

Here in Prescott Valley AZ the courts never handle the tickets. The money is collected by the same company that installed the stationary and mobile photo enforcement systems. The problem has been brought up city board meetings but it produces so much revenue it won't be revoked. In the end most folks just avoid the streets they are on. At $440.00+ a pop it is VERY popular with the city GODS! hahahaha

Posted by: RetCombatVet | November 5, 2009 2:44 PM

I am simply against any sort of "cop without a brain" law enforcement. If there are not enough Police Officers to enforce speeding laws, we need to find ways to have more policemen that can work in all phases of law enforcement, not just in revenue generation.

Posted by: rschaf74 | November 5, 2009 2:47 PM

I love speed cameras. Speed camera fines are one of only two taxes that you can choose not to pay (the other being lottery tickets). Just keep your speed within posted limits plus 12 and let the drivers who can't control themselves keep your taxes lower.

Posted by: smithk1 | November 5, 2009 2:49 PM

I would much rather have a ticket mailed to me than have to go through the whole being pulled over bit. In addition, I would much rather my tax dollars not be spent paying a police's salary for him/her to hide in the bushes with a radar gun. People will eventually adjust to it just like we adjusted to pumping our own gas, going to the ATM rather than the bank teller, and checking out our own groceries.

Posted by: misha2 | November 5, 2009 2:56 PM

I imagine that a very high percentage of the photo tickets given out in DC are to non-residents. It's like a commuter tax, which DC should have, but Congress will never allow!

Posted by: dude7 | November 5, 2009 3:00 PM

Cop without a brain? How about drivers without a brain? These cameras have been used in Europe for 25 years; it's not like they're new technology, and it's not as if there's any question of their accuracy. (If a camera should go haywire, it would be issuing many times the normal number of tickets, that would be noticed statistically, and tickets during that time period would be voided.

I don't understand why people believe they have a right to break laws and regulations that provide for everyone's safety. The real problem is that the cameras ARE accurate, so such reckless endangerers now stand a real chance of being penalized, and that is what frosts them.

Now now we're going to have scofflaws VOTE on whether or not the laws they choose not to obey should be enforced? There's a brilliant idea!

Oh, and yes, by the way, the idiot who wrote this question predetermined the outcome of this supposed "poll."

Posted by: threeoaksgone | November 5, 2009 3:00 PM

As many have said it: most of these cameras are actully installed where traffic rolls safely, and where motorists may instinctively hit the accelerator because of a wide empty stretch of highway in front of them (e.g., McArthur Bld). In many instances, some signages, etc. are even dangerous. I couls have been killed in a motor cycle accident in my youth because I hit a car which was making a left turn into my way. Why did I hit it? I was driving on a four-lane highway in the country. At all intersections there was a posted speed limit of 45 miles. At "my accident intersection", no speed limit was posted. I slowed down anyhow, but too late, being surprised. Later, the police officer told me (after I had come out of surgery) that I had been over the speed limit. A sign had been there indicating a "Residential Area" and the speed limit then dropped to 30 miles automatically. Therefore, no sign with a speed limit had been posted. Obiously I had overlooked the "Residential Area" sign. Technically, "the law" was right, but in practical terms, it was a gross endangerment of motorists.

I have seen speed cameras on country roads in the middle of nowhere. The only purpose of these things can only have been revenue generation. I personally think that watching traffic around you is much more important than constantly monitoring the speedometer. I have driven a lot in Europe. There you watch traffic, here you watch your car instrument. I wonder what is safer.

Posted by: flyer | November 5, 2009 3:06 PM

No cameras anywhere...period. The entire idea of spy cameras reeks of Big Brother.

Posted by: nashvillemykl | November 5, 2009 3:13 PM

Posted by: JonB3 | November 5, 2009 3:15 PM

I have zero sympathy for the attitude (apparently common to most of these drivers) that if you don't happen to like a law, then it's optional. If you are speeding, you are breaking the law. (We are a nation of laws, remember?) Don't like it?? Work to have the law changed. For example: "It should be legal to drive 55 past my child's school", "The speed limit on the street where my house is should be 50" etc etc, & see how many supporters you get to sign up for the campaign...at YOUR child's school, on YOUR street, etc etc.

Pedestrians? Cyclists? NOBODY walks -- except poor people, homeless people, criminals, or crazy enviro-nut-cases. Keep them off the streets.

Actually instead of fines, maybe offenders should be handed a GPS recorder & ordered to WALK X many miles on selected local streets and perhaps they might have a different view from that of cruising in an SUV.

Posted by: icyone | November 5, 2009 3:15 PM

This is how speed is controlled in most of Scandinavia, and the cameras do work to a certain degree. However, when GPS systems can warn drivers of nearby cameras, it becomes a joke. Still, I do believe that cameras do have a calming effect.

Posted by: TePa | November 5, 2009 3:18 PM

What a push poll! The WaPo has become shameless.

Posted by: trh123 | November 5, 2009 3:24 PM

JKOCH2,

Unfortunately, you've missed the part of my earlier post that is most appropriate for someone like you to read.

It addressed those who would incorrectly cast this as a "cut-and-dry issue of driving safely versus driving recklessly (which they seem to generously frame as 70 mph over while intoxicated in a school zone with nuns present)."

You appear to have strayed from this only by doubling-down on the ridiculousness of the stereotype. Apparently, the reckless child-and-nun endagering stereotype now includes "babbling on cell phones" "unaware of speed limits" and a suggestion that "those people" certainly cannot live in neighborhoods.

Is that all? Speeders' cars don't also spit fireballs and shards of broken glass while running down the Easter Bunny?

You, and those of the same mind, have invented a fiction to argue against because it's easier than facing the fact that those who have issues with speed cameras may be much like you. We may actually have clean driving records. Even children. And heaven forbid, we may actually live in honest-to-goodness neighborhoods.

But while understandable, your silly caricatures are not terribly helpful. There are difficult and thorny questions of governance underlying the use of speed cameras. And those issues deserve serious discussion, not indulgent make-believe.


Posted by: dsk36 | November 5, 2009 3:25 PM

On the whole, I'm inclined to support automated traffic enforcement, with two caveats. First, some yellow lights do need to be lengthened. Second, we need to stop overengineering roads. If a road passes through an area such that anything over, say, 30 MPH is unsafe (because of schools or high pedestrian density or lots of children or deer frequently bounding across the street), build a road that should be driven at 30 MPH. Overengineering the road wastes money and encourages people to drive at a speed that is safe for traffic, which may not be a safe speed for everything around the traffic.

If we don't have automated enforcement, though, I want the penalties for speeding tickets and light running dramatically increased, both in financial terms and in terms of risking a license. Deterrents are a mixture of the possibility of being caught and the severity of the punishment; if we reduce one half of the equation, the other needs to come up.

Posted by: otherquaker | November 5, 2009 3:25 PM

It is unfortunate that this comments section doesn't have the info as to whether the posters have received a photo ticket or not.

The points about safety vs. revenue are well made, esp. when the entire process is handled by a private contractor on a commission basis. Cities (and all government)are notorious for revenue schemes cloaked in the mantel of 'social good' when in fact no social good at all is served. In principal, a photo speed zone near a school would be socially responsible. But a photo speed zone at the bottom of a hill is...yes, a revenue generator.

Intersection cameras however have my 100% positive support. When the light turns yellow - it does NOT mean step on the gas. If the light is red, it does not mean scoot around the r/h turn just ahead of the thru traffic without stopping. I would venture to guess that every respondent here sees multiple violations at intersections on a weekly basis. So what if the city or county picks up a couple of hundred $ ? Those violations at intersections, particularly during rush hour are maddening and frustrating.

Change the penalty to community service? That simply adds administrative costs and more bureaucracy to an already miserably inefficient system. Send in your check and obey to easy-to-understand rules and regs. Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

Posted by: j_donaldson1 | November 5, 2009 3:27 PM

I can't possibly understand how any relatively sane individual who maintains the legal speed limit (most speed cameras give you at least 5 miles over the limit; some give up up to 12 miles over) could possibly object to such a foolproof method of catching and fining those breaking the law by speeding. Speed cameras allow the police to perform more important work and the have the effect of slowing down traffic. And so what if it is a means to gather more revenue? If you speed, you deserve the fine -- no matter whether it is a cop that catches you on radar or a speed camera. Grow up people

Posted by: srchapman52 | November 5, 2009 3:33 PM

I'm 100% against outsourcing law enforcement and this system is much too heavily stacked against the defendant.

Speeding is wrong.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by: solsticebelle | November 5, 2009 3:37 PM

Speeding is dangerous for all of us but if you think you are repeatedly getting tickets from faulty speed or redlight cameras, have a mini video camera of your own(Brickhouse Sec) in your car that records your speed, location and road you are on. I heard some cab drivers had their speed camera tickets cancelled by prving through video from their car-cam that they were not speeding and that speed camera needed calibration/adjustment etc.

Posted by: Jim110 | November 5, 2009 3:41 PM

The people who say that speed cameras are there to make a profit are correct. They exist so that municipalities can make a little cash.

But quite frankly, I do not mind the government making a profit off people who think they are above the law. It's clever, and surprisingly efficient to generate revenue while at the same time doling out punishment.

Posted by: dkp01 | November 5, 2009 3:58 PM

Accidents and injuries stay the same or increase if the camera is there....More and more tickets are issued as cameras proliferate....Motorists fight back by voting out cameras...

All this seems to me the result of more and more cars on the roads. With more cars comes congestion, travel delays, impatience,... thus, speeding. Mind you, most speeding is not zooming through a 30 mph zone at 75 mph. It's a modest increase to make up precious time to get where one needs to get. So many obstacles are put up by poor traffic and road design, ill-coceived traffic light placement and timing, and poor overall development planning. It's no wonder that people "speed" through stretches of road at a speed that is not dangerous; they merely need to get to their destination after fighting the aforementioned obstacles.

Speed cameras take advantage of this by catching drivers who - unlike, say, bank robbers, muggers and thieves - are not out to break the law knowingly. They just want to get to their kids soccer game. But the cameras force the "offender" to pay up with no witnesses to be called, no cross-examination, no nothing; the exact opposite of what real law breakers can do.
For that reason alone, the cameras should go!

Posted by: lenagabe1 | November 5, 2009 3:58 PM

People who express dismay over objections to speed cameras (and other kinds of remote government surveillance) are missing the point. I don't think the cameras should be outlawed because I like to speed. I think they should be outlawed because I remember Orwell.

Posted by: oxhead1 | November 5, 2009 4:18 PM

Not long ago I received a camera enforced ticket for not coming to a complete stop before turning on a red light. The video indeed shows me doing that but also shows three other cars behind me pulling out all before any car came along the road. My son recently received one for the same violation. These tickets cost me and my son $100 each, a little steep i thought for a minor traffic violation. I do think however for dangerous traffic violations they are a good idea but i also feel they are becoming a little overused now. However, it would be nice if the fine revenue was used to benefit some worthy cause.

Posted by: lynnlovesplants | November 5, 2009 4:23 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company