Try New England

Ditto!

They are the worst. I have relatives there.

You've obviously never been to Massachusetts.

I agree with you about the speed cameras and as a general rule I am opposed to over legislation but this is one instance where safety needs to come first.

Speed cameras are great. Don't like them? Don't speed.

I agree with Tim. If you want to break the law and speed through school zones and work zones, then you deserve a ticket, whether there is a physical cop there or just a camera. Wait until Phil Rigatuso III is hit by a speeding car on his way home from school, then Phil Jr. may reconsider.

Unfortunately the reason Maryland and most places has to over legislate is because there are so many who are too selfish to use common sense and common courtesy to keep everyone safe. If people would just think of someone other than themselves occasionally, we could go back to not having a law for every little thing we do. As stated in the article having to post police at these intersections because people can't practice common courtesy is costing the taxpayers a bundle...it also takes them off of patrol where their presence might be able to prevent a burglary etc. Quite sad that so many drivers act like spoiled children...me me me me.

@Tim & Nicholas Zahn, speed cameras do nothing more than generate revenue for the state. No points are given if you pay the ticket. They're not there for safety reasons. They were sold to you under that guise, sure. But that doesn't make it so. The bottom line is they're unconstitutional. The thing is, if a person generally drives without any mind to the speed limit and/or common sense there's a good chance they'll do the same no matter the circumstances. If it wasn't about revenue and we actually started suspending licenses, I'd be inclined to think that some of these laws actually serve a purpose regarding safety. But that's not the case.

Phil: I'd like to smoke some of what you are smoking.
Unconstitutional? Show me where. You do realize half of the reason they don't take points is likely for constitutional challenge reasons (the other half being not overbooking courtrooms anymore then they already are, I'll guess).

You can only lose points as a penalty if a live officer tickets you. I thought it was a pretty wise line to draw.

Nothing wrong or unconstitutional with revenue generation - especially when it comes at the expense of law violators.

Now, I'm not particularly happy about the 'costs' of these cameras - I think there's some fleecing going on in that particular aspect.

...and suspending licenses? How counterproductive is that? Now people can't work. You're here complaining about cash fees and yet suggesting they should suspend licenses if they are 'serious'? Yeah, brilliant idea.

Good thing you aren't creating public policy. Your viewpoints have more logic holes then a slice of Swiss cheese.

Bottom line: Don't speed where you know cameras are around. They aren't generating tickets for going 5-7 mph over either, I might add. If you get a photo ticket, you deserve it. Suck it up, and drive better.

Here's my problem with speed cameras. Instead of focusing on the road many studies have found that drivers are looking at their speedometers instead, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents. They also cause traffic to bunch and cause people to drive much closer together, another factor in accidents. Finally many drives upon seeing the speed camera slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket and end up involved in or causing an accident. Make no mistake about it, these devices have one purpose and that is to generate revenue.

http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

I'm surprised no one here pointed out that speed cameras only take your picture if you are going at least 10 or more miles over the speed limit. So the people that violently break are overreacting, as are those who crawl by exactly at the speed limit. Certainly it is meant to garner revenue, but if you are going more than 10 miles over the speed limit you are rather asking for it.

Nick: The only reason red light cameras cause more accidents (if they do) is because it forces law breakers to start paying attention and stop running yellow/red lights.

Rear end accidents - guess what? Completely the driver doing the rear ending's error. Better idea- learn to drive, put down the cell phone/stop texting, and drive responsibly.

If there's a benefit for revenue generation by profiting off of LAWBREAKERS, then I am all for it. Cause guess what folks - when you run a red light, you are...say it with me... BREAKING...THE...LAW.

Stop, and you'll be amazed how ambivalent you are to them - like I am.

When I do get the occasional camera ticket, I pay it, knowing full well I'm taking responsibility for my actions.

@Tim, Read the 14th Amendment. You too have a right to due process even if you don't realize it. You have a right to face your accuser. This is why traffic cases are thrown out of court when the ticketing officer doesn't show up. Read the constitution. The stuff in there protects your rights too.

Tim and Colleen,
Frankly I don't care why they cause more accidents. The fact that they do is enough for me to be opposed to them. It seems that since they have the exact opposite effect that they are intended they are a colossal failure. Why they cause more accidents is immaterial. They endanger motorists, and not necessarily the ones responsible for the infractions as the motorists around the lawbreakers are placed in increased jeopardy as well.

Nick: If you're going to completely discount the cause of the accident increase (if there's an increase at all), then you're simply being close-minded - not looking at the full equation, just the portion that suits your argument.

Phil: The 14th amendment doesn't apply as these tickets never appear on any permanent record (no points, no record). That's the difference. I've yet to hear a court system disagree - until then, it's constitutional and arguments against them are simply opinions (which is fine). No one said opinions ever had to be based on fact. I just tend to make my own based on them.
I'm well aware of my rights, political science/pre-law was one of my degrees in college (along with Administration of Justice, and finally MIS (Information Systems)

I fail to see how Tim. I think you are over analyzing the issue. IF they cause more accidents(which they do) THEN they are counter-productive. Its that simple. You can attack me all you want but I've yet to see you make a valid point regarding traffic cameras. These cameras are pushed upon us under the guise of safety and they don't actually improve safety. They make these areas less safe. It is another way this state can levy taxes on the populous without calling them taxes. Did you even click on the link that I posted and look at the full studies contained therein? Or are YOU so close minded that you've already made up your mind?

Nick: You don't see why? Here you go. Your quote:
"Frankly I don't care why they cause more accidents. The fact that they do is enough for me to be opposed to them."

So effectively you are forming an opinion that completely discounts one of the two reasons they are put in, to begin with - to catch law breakers.
The second reason is obviously as revenue generation - but then again, if there are no law breakers, then there is no revenue...right?

I don't feel like I’m "attacking" you (in particular) at all. Just your viewpoint, that’s all.
I sincerely apologize if it's coming across as personal.
I skimmed the results on that link (without opening the full studies) last night.
Two thoughts:
1) You know what? If enough accidents happen, eventually behavior will be modified and people will stop running red lights. Again, this is breaking the law we’re talking about.
2) This also make the assumption there aren't any studies out there that prove the opposite effect. I'd be happy to produce a couple of them if you really care - I'm running out of post space :)

I see similar arguments made for the DREAM Act, suggesting illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if they make a good contribution to society. My stance on this is similar - NO. You are here legally, or you aren't and should be deported.

Nick: Ultimately, opinions are what they are, and everyone's entitled to them, based in fact or not. At least you provided some sort of evidence to back up your opinion - which is more then most people do.

We can agree to disagree on this. It's all good, just lively discussion that hopefully educates others as well as ourselves.

You're right Tim. Perhaps my post was a bit reactive and for that I apologize. I do not agree with you but you are an articulate person who at least puts thought into your posts which I have to say is lacking in a lot of the posts on this website. At least on the DREAM act we can find some common ground since on that subject we are in total agreement. in truth a lot of the reason I am opposed to speed cameras is that I see first hand the chaos they cause on a regular basis when I drive on 695. Traffic was much smoother before the implementation of these devices. In any event I do enjoy a lively discourse with someone who has the intelligence to argue without getting angry.

Wow, Tim. I think we are going to have to disagree. As if the court system hasn't totally ignored The Constitution time and time again. Would you believe them if they told you that 3 was really 4 and they were clearly holding up 3 fingers? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. The fact is, the American people should have stood up a long time ago.

Nick: Thanks for the discussion - It's all good.
I do (believe it or not) understand your perspective in this debate. It's not without merit.
I just feel the rule of law supercedes it, that's ultimately where we seem to disagree (indirectly).
Without law, there is no order, without order, there is chaos.

Me too! At least in my training.

And that is exactly why we should make people re-test when they renew their driver's licenses. I bet we'd weed out a lot of stupidity. God I hope so. Bc clearly it is rampant...

it's sad. All you can do is raise your child(ren) not to be this way and set the right examples.

Your logic is flawed. So a person who is approaching 24 on wheel road during rush hour will sit there all day waiting for a break in traffic that is never going to come. Until eventually they pull out and cause an accident because you are in such a rush to get to work. Leave early and take your time. It is the only solution that works. Will it cause some delays? Sure. But I would rather inconvenience a thousand people than see one dead because someone like you couldn't be bothered to stop.

In situations where traffic conserations are needed, then cones and police offiers (or reserve police officers) can be used to direct the flow of traffic at these major intersections. We could even train and use off-duty crossing guards to direct traffic if needed.

Oh how many wish they could. :-)

@Liz - I know the crossing guards want to be able to direct traffic. I think it would be a great idea to create a program where crossing guards are able to take additional training to become "reserve police officers" (which some jurisdictions have). Then, during storms or emergencies, when school is normally cancelled, they could have the authority to direct traffic and record license plates of vehicles violating traffic laws.

Seems to me if it was important enough to put a light up, it means there were problems with the intersection to start with to warrant a light. That means that 2 way stops signs weren't sufficient before the light was put up and they won't be sufficient if the lights go out. Making your own decisions in these circumstances is dangerous. Obviously from all the comments everyone doesn't agree, so taking a chance that your decision is going to match someone elses is going to be dangerous. In this type of circumstance I believe guidance is necessary and if it takes a law to make people follow the guidance, then so be it. I'd rather have a law then be killed by someone who doesn't agree with me, or sit at an intersection all day trying to get through because people don't think I should have a right of way.

Kathy, no one talks on the phone and drives, because there is a law against doing so..lol... Just as if a law is passed for this, people will still violate this. If power is out the police are usually busy handling all the calls assoiciated with the outage, that enforcement will not occur.

James the main reason the cell phone law is toothless, is because our "brave" *cough* *cough* state Congress didn't have the fortitude to make it a primary offense.
The other factor would then be simple enforcement, but as a secondary offense enforcing the law is about as useful as the law not being there at all.

Which is just how many politicians like it. They make believe they accomplish something - but in effect they rarely do.

Your right, Phil, there is no need for another law. This law could also have been used instead of the texting/talking while driving law.

This is spot on. "careless and imprudent manner that endangers the life or property" I love that we need a law to state common sense essentially, Don't drive like an a**hole, that could be your mother in the other car.

Just wondering if I should impart a smart alec come-back to the Dunkin Donut remark......but instead I will just move on accepting it as an unfortunate and poorly placed remark at the expense of our outstanding police officers.

Depends on your county. Bmore county was like a ghost town at intersections, but as soon as you cross to Howard there were police at every intersection. Another good solution I saw was taping off the middle of the intersections, essentially preventing drivers from going through- forced to drive straight on the main road.

Believe it- I was thoroughly cursed out by a man who was clearly very perturbed by the fact that I was obeying traffic guidelines (if not an official law). Not to mention that he almost ran me down as I approached the intersection. A friend of mine related a very similar story that happened to her not once but twice in the same day. frankly, I'm afraid NOT to stop at the intersections since everyone else is so willy nilly about the whole thing.

huh?

Um right, because firefighters (volunteer or paid) and police officers have nothing better to do during a natural disaster than sit in an intersection and babysit grown adults to ensure they get somewhere without having to stop at a non-functioning light. Next hurricane, or even a bad thunderstorm, wander over to radioreference.com and take a listen to what your local firefighters and police have to deal with. Your comment is uneducated on many levels.

@ Sam I am not looking for a board war. I was a former member of a Vol Fire Unit (Fire-Police Capt) and have family in State and County Police family. So I am educated I never said right after the storm Plus people need to stay off the damn roads read the Baltimore Sun (lines around Wawa, Starbucks for coffee (coffee don't remember that being a priority) ("I have to have my morning coffee" actual quote) People on the road after storms need to be Medical, Fire, Police and Repair crews Not oh lets go see the storm or I am bored I have no powers lets go for a drive. I agree why do grown adults need to be baby sat cause people are out for Number 1 and that is it. The warnings say STAY OFF THE ROADS do we need a Driving Ban for every storm. People drive thru standing water over thier tires (you and I know that is stupid) but then now from 1 officer setting up a baricade and moving on now you got to get a full swift water crew to get this idiot. (Barricade roads even unmanned we don't need officers every where just at select intersections)

Joe: Thanks for the link. I can tell you that AAA Mid-Atlantic consulted with state police on a statement about the lack of a law as well as the the bill that failed in the General Assembly three times (2008, 2009 and 2010).

Joe, just reviewed the state driver's handbook referenced in the link you provided. I don't see any reference to how to treat inoperable or malfunctioning lights at an intersection. http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Resources/DL-002B.pdf

@ Mr. Sears-

It's in there. Pg. 11(pg.15 of the PDF), Section IV, Para. 3

I'm glad your sons are okay, despite the terrible and inconsiderate driving of that other person.