

DC, Maryland: Speed Camera Firms Move To Hide Evidence - wtvanhest
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4167.asp

======
mikegagnon
By cropping every photo, DC hearing adjudicators should now throw out every
alleged traffic violation (regardless of what the photographs purport to
show).

It is simple why: 1\. "DC hearing adjudicators have been throwing out
citations whenever another vehicle was visible, creating the possibility of a
spurious radar reading" 2\. The accused to do not need to prove their
innocence; rather the court has to prove the guilt of the accused 3\. It now
becomes impossible adjudicators to know if the another vehicle interfered with
the radar 4\. There is now __always__ reasonable doubt that the accused is
guilty (since the camera system always crops photos) 5\. The accused should
always be found not guilty

It is really a detestable perversion of justice for prosecution to
systematically hide evidence.

Why doesn't the prosecution just make their lives easier by throwing out all
cases where there are other vehicles in the photo?

~~~
Natsu
It would be interesting if people were able to get the full digital copies,
because many times edits will leave evidence behind. If you have EXIF or other
data on the camera, you might know what size the photos are supposed to be and
can then prove that they've been cropped because they're some oddball size.
Also, software like Adobe Photoshop may leave behind things like a thumbnail
of the original picture in the metadata. I seem to remember a few people being
embarrassed by that one.

~~~
lostlogin
The Iraq war dossier of Blair's comes to mind.
[http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm](http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm)

------
Mr_N
To provide a small anecdote; on my 10 minute commute to work each morning, I
pass no fewer than 6 speeding cameras, potentially more that I haven't
noticed, and frankly, the sheer prevalence and "sneakyness" by which they are
deployed convinced me long ago that the goal here was to rack up tickets
rather than to prevent speeding. (Cameras hidden in bushes/behind trees, 2
cameras on the same block, within ~20 seconds of each other, both hidden
behind shrubbery on the right hand side of a right hand turn). In writing this
I admit I have second guesses of whether I'm being too tin foil hat with the
suspicions, but it's basically a checklist of "where would I put cameras if I
wanted to accumulate the maximum # of violations", with no regard to where the
most dangerous roads on this commute are.

Let's even take a step back here and look at the program itself. It's not
really "news" that behavioral modification (which, in a perfect world, is the
end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding) doesn't really work
well when the punishment is long after the action that it is reinforcing. One
could make a very hand wavy argument about the flash, but it's a weak
reinforcer (the monetary punishment being very delayed), and the swapping with
infrared is the nail in the coffin of that argument.

~~~
pdonis
_the goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding_

You're just now realizing this? This has _always_ been the primary goal of
speeding laws (and many other traffic laws). They're a revenue source for
state and local governments.

 _the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding_

If that's really the goal (which it isn't, see above), it's the wrong goal.
The goal should be to make driving safer. Punishing people when they haven't
caused any actual harm does not serve that goal; in fact, it works against it,
by reducing people's respect for _all_ traffic laws and rules of the road.
People view driving as a game, trying to evade being caught, instead of
viewing it as what it is, being in control of a large and complex piece of
machinery that can cause serious harm if misused, because the definition of
"misuse" has been blown out of all proportion by a combination of nanny-state
thinking and governments not wanting to openly admit their sources of revenue.

~~~
Mr_N
Sorry if I was unclear; I meant to express that I had indeed quite some time
ago come to the realization, but due to placement as I said and not due to any
solid proof as is cited in the article.

Secondly; I'm not sure I completely see you as disagreeing with my stated end
goal. We want people to realize they are driving a potential weapon, and I
think that's a change that'll have to come in far more areas than just traffic
enforcement (better education, assessment of readiness, etc), but even in this
dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to
assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain
speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm. And if someone is putting
others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you
respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to
proactively influence their behavior patterns. (unless I totally misunderstood
how you were approaching my statement and this just went off in a random
direction...)

~~~
pdonis
_even in this dream world where we 've made those changes, I don't think it's
unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to
exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm_

But the question is not whether people's behavior affects the likelihood of
harm; of course it does, in all areas of life, not just driving. The question
is what is the appropriate response. See below.

 _And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to
a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable
solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns_

And you do that, IMO, by attaching punishments to _actual_ harm, not to an
increased likelihood of harm (which must always be an estimate only).

First of all, the legislator who drafts the speeding laws and the bureaucrat
who sets the speed limits for particular roads can't possibly know as much as
the driver who's actually on the spot about what a reasonably safe speed is in
a particular situation; speeding laws can't adjust for varying conditions.

Second, if punishments are attached to actual harm, and fall on the person who
causes the harm, then that person has an incentive to make accurate estimates
of the risk of harm. The legislator and the bureaucrat have no such incentive;
but if the law can only impose punishment when there has been actual harm, the
legislator and the bureaucrat can only do a limited amount of damage by trying
to game the criteria.

However, if punishments can be attached to just an estimated increase in risk
of harm, rather than to actual harm, legislators and bureaucrats have an
incentive to exaggerate the estimated risk of harm, since it allows them to
lower the threshold for penalties and thereby bring in more revenue. But
drivers themselves, who can see perfectly well that the criteria are being
gamed, respond by trying to evade the law. The end result is that the costs of
the system that is in place to catch speeders, and the escalating arms race
between the speeders and the government, far outweigh any benefits that might
accrue from imposing punishments when there has been no actual harm.

~~~
Mr_N
This does two things that I don't agree with though. One, assumes that people
can accurately judge -anything- appropriately about what is safe in their
surroundings. I'll trust someone so far as to not be too afraid to go outside
lest someone decide to run me over with a crop thresher, but I've seen enough
"No officer I'm not too drunk to drive" (with car wedged in a tree) to trust
that judgement carte-blanche.

Secondly, it seems to ignore two things, first, you say that with limits,
people game the system. I don't disagree. But without limits, I expect the
exact same gaming, "I feel comfortable driving at 100mph on this road", but
far more unbounded. Combined with some pretty reasonable evidence towards
higher speeds increasing the risk of accidents ([http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/97.835.PDF](http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/97.835.PDF)), one can see the outcome this would lead
to.

~~~
pdonis
_One, assumes that people can accurately judge -anything- appropriately about
what is safe in their surroundings._

I didn't assume that; I only assumed that the people actually on the spot can
judge what is safe _better_ than legislators and bureaucrats who aren't even
there, and who have plenty of incentives to distort the judgment anyway.

 _you say that with limits, people game the system_

When I talked about gaming, I wasn't talking about people trying to avoid
being caught speeding. I was talking about legislators and bureaucrats
distorting the data about risk to justify lower speed limits and higher fines,
when the real reason for them is just that they need a revenue source.

As far as drivers themselves taking more risk in the absence of speeding laws,
evidently you missed the part of my post where I said that people should
suffer appropriate punishment if they cause actual harm. That gives people a
strong incentive to avoid causing actual harm, i.e., to get better at
assessing the risks of the things they do, including driving.

To the extent that we actually allow this incentive to operate in our society,
I think it works reasonably well, certainly better than trusting governments
to get things like this right. shpxnvz provided some evidence for that.
Another piece of evidence is the fact that states with no-fault auto insurance
have higher accident rates, indicating that uncoupling people's decisions from
unpleasant consequences, even partially, causes them to make worse decisions.

~~~
nitrogen
Is it also possible that states with no-fault insurance have people more
willing to report accidents?

~~~
pdonis
I wouldn't think so; in fact, if anything, I would expect the opposite. If
there is an accident in a state with ordinary (i.e., not no-fault) insurance,
one party (the one not at fault) is always going to have an incentive to
report it. If there is an accident in a no-fault state, it's possible that
neither party will want to report it (because it might cause both of their
premiums to go up).

------
dubfan
This is no surprise to me. The company in question, American Traffic
Solutions, has been caught engaging in some ethically questionable behavior by
the Everett (WA) Herald. Some choice articles:

[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793](http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793)

[http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929](http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929)

~~~
janesvilleseo
Interesting. I tried to view both articles and the are no longer on site. I
did find them via Google's cache.

~~~
Amadou
I don't know if the OP update his posting but both URLs work just fine for me.

------
prawn
Why is this privatised? Too easy to abuse.

If the ultimate goal, as it should be, is safety/deterrence, then a camera
flash (reminds other motorists) is surely a decent idea?

I drove in the UK recently and there are speed camera warning signs
everywhere, usually followed by quite obvious cameras.

Here in Australia, police have been known to hide around corners or position
cameras disguised as roadside garbage bins, though I haven't heard much on
this front for a while so maybe public outcry have pulled them a little into
line. For the most part though, the cameras are not unreasonably located and
an unspoken leeway of about 10% applies (e.g., can get away with 54 in a 50
zone).

~~~
darasen
"Why is this privatised? Too easy to abuse."

Because the government never participates in abuse?

~~~
vonmoltke
Government is right in the middle of this. The city of Baltimore issued a
speeding citation to a driver who was not moving after the camera evidence
went past two city reviewers:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57559105-71/speed-
camera-g...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57559105-71/speed-camera-gives-
ticket-to-stationary-car/)

------
wtvanhest
For those that have never lived in DC, the cameras are everywhere. Inside the
district they have a bunch of white lines where you are being measured for
speed so that the camera's two photos' time stamps can (presumably) be
examined to make sure you were actually speeding.

~~~
eli
My impression is that they're also pretty popular among residents. I think
many--probably most--DC residents support the cameras, at least in principle.
See, for example, the comments in this thread:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1jagry/yes_som...](http://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1jagry/yes_some_people_are_actually_calling_for_more/)

~~~
incision
Well, DC is the special case in the area. Over a third of residents don't own
a car and just a hair under half (49.5%) walk or use public transit to get to
work. Contrast that with MD or VA where the numbers are 11% and 6.6%
respectively. In MD/VA 83%/87% drive or carpool to work.
([http://factfinder2.census.gov/](http://factfinder2.census.gov/))

I expect the majority of people ticketed in DC are those commuters coming from
the surrounding suburbs. It's logical that people who aren't negatively
affected by the cameras have a better opinion of them. Even then, the survey
linked in that thread shows a fairly narrow majority (55%) approval.

There's more cheering for red light cameras and requests for box block cameras
than traffic cameras in general. Anecdotally, most find red light cameras more
acceptable than speed cameras.

Personally, I commute into DC every day, but rarely by car. I don't mind the
cameras outside of the uncharacteristically low-speed ones posted along empty
stretches on the main arteries in and out of town. They're automated toll
collectors targeting tourists and first-timers.

Also, what a typical Reddit thread. Every comment that's remotely critical of
the cameras has been downvoted negative despite some perfectly valid points.

~~~
eli
DC is also a special case because it's the only place in America where it's
against Federal Law to implement a proper commuter tax.

------
wyclif
What is the state of tag-obscuring devices these days? I would imagine this
piece of crowdfunded hardware might prove useful:
[http://www.nophoto.com/pages/how-it-works](http://www.nophoto.com/pages/how-
it-works)

~~~
pc86
Is this really legal?

------
jpollock
Here in NZ, they have started putting up signs that show your speed instead of
taking a picture and issuing a fine. They have found that displaying a
vehicle's speed has a much stronger impact on speed (and accidents) than
tickets.

~~~
teej
We had those in Maryland before the speed cameras, but the crack of speed
ticket money is too good for our law enforcement to put down. It's
unfortunate, speed cameras have been shown to have a negative impact on
accidents.

~~~
X-Istence
Light turns orange? I hit my brakes hard if an intersection has cameras. Who
knows whether the light is set to stay orange for the required X amount of
seconds, or if it has been lowered to Y seconds to try to make money off
people.

The people behind me better hope they weren't tailgating me AND have brakes
just as good as mine ...

------
mathattack
Is false ticketing really an issue? I would think that there are a lot of
bigger issues with all these cameras.

~~~
mpyne
I pass by two of those cameras twice a week. Sometimes I'm over the limit
since it changes rather drastically from 60 to 50 (though normally I'm way
under since the assholes in front of me slow down way too much).

But either way, I've not been ticketed a single time.

~~~
dhugiaskmak
In Maryland the cameras don't trigger unless you're going at least 12mph over
the speed limit.

------
ronaldj
I moved from Maryland a couple of years ago. Very surprised to see how many
speed cameras pop up each time I go back for a visit. I don't speed, but
whenever I see a sign for one it really stresses me out. Glad I don't live
there anymore.

------
avty
The end of liberty.

------
jchrisa
Anything that makes driving less convenient is fine by me!

~~~
Sauer_Kraut
This is a horrific attitude.

