Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

On 2009-11-04, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>>> is. Open your eyes.
>
>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate
>> the speed limit.
>
> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
> for decades?

That question isn't supposed to be asked. We are simply supposed to
obey according to the law-is-the-law types.

I get the idea that if I related some of my school zone driving
experiences, the argument would shift to how I am inciting road rage by
driving so slowly.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-11-04, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>>>> is. Open your eyes.
>>
>>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate
>>> the speed limit.
>>
>> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
>> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
>> for decades?
>
> That question isn't supposed to be asked. We are simply supposed to
> obey according to the law-is-the-law types.
>
> I get the idea that if I related some of my school zone driving
> experiences, the argument would shift to how I am inciting road rage by
> driving so slowly.
>
Doubtful. If you gradually slowed down to 25 mph just before passing the
school zone sign and gradually (note: NOT briskly) accelerated back up to
speed after passing the end school zone, the problem would be with the other
drivers lacking patience and being incapable of following the rules of the
road. School zones may also have areas where crossing guards use stop signs
to enforce the crosswalks, stopping for those is also required.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>>> is. Open your eyes.
>
>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate the
>> speed limit.
>
> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
> for decades?


Oversight, perhaps. Again, even if they weren't designated school zones
before, there is nothing wrong with making them that at this point, even if
a secondary side effect is revenue collection. The zoning has already been
reported as legal, as in within the legal boundaries of designating it as a
school zone.

On 2009-11-04, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>>>> is. Open your eyes.
>>
>>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate the
>>> speed limit.
>>
>> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
>> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
>> for decades?
>
>
> Oversight, perhaps. Again, even if they weren't designated school zones
> before, there is nothing wrong with making them that at this point, even if
> a secondary side effect is revenue collection. The zoning has already been
> reported as legal, as in within the legal boundaries of designating it as a
> school zone.

Nothing wrong if you consider the law to be the measure of right and
wrong. The law has lots of wrong things being legal. The best way to
do wrong is through the government so that the wrong is legal. Like any
territorial mafia, the government only wants a piece of the action. Fail
to give it a piece and the actions are considered illegal. Give it a
piece and the same thing will be legal.

Traffic camera enforcement companies know this all too well. They go to
the local godfather(s) and get their blessing to run a scam in their
territory and in exchange give the godfather(s) a piece of the action.

Because of the lack of due process in traffic camera tickets, obeying
the law is not really much protection. At times camera operators just
ticket people anyway or they rig the deck. (short yellows, hidden signs,
etc and so forth)

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:48:57 -0800
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote:
>
> > "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > >> "Brent" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >
> > >>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs
> > >>> new school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it
> > >>> for what it is. Open your eyes.
> > >
> > >> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers
> > >> violate the speed limit.
> > >
> > > I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent
> > > asked. That is, why designate new school zones for a school that
> > > has been there for decades?
> >
> >
> > Oversight, perhaps. Again, even if they weren't designated school
> > zones before, there is nothing wrong with making them that at this
> > point, even if a secondary side effect is revenue collection.
>
> It's not a secondary side-effect. Stealing money from innocent
> motorists is the primary goal.

That is your version of the truth based not on any fact.

The reality is according to state statutes streets next to schools are
school zones by definition and motorists are required to slow down when
children are present. No signs are required - this is something
motorists are supposed to know.
The new law requires a sign to be put up when the new speed cameras
are at such locations that qualify as school zones and are used for the
purpose of enforcing the school zone limit. Putting up a "school zone"
sign is part of the requirements in the statutes for putting up a camera
in a school zone. The camera can only be used for the limited time of
day when children are present and the motorist must be going 12 miles
over the limit to be cited. The citation does not count against points.
As far as I can tell all the locations where the cameras have been
installed are locations with lots of kids present. Just because somebody
snapped a picture of street workers putting up a new sign doesn't make
it a giant conspiracy.


If you are driving 12 miles over the limit in front of an elementary
school when children are present I wouldn't call you an innocent
motorist.

-jim






> Did you not read the article? The state
> law doesn't state that all roads within X distance of a school must be a
> school zone, state law states that roads outside of this distance can't
> be a school zone. Many school zones existed (and complied with the
> law) because there were obvious reasons...such as children crossing
> the roads in those school zones.
>
> NOW some nearby roads are being designated as school zones (still
> within compliance with the law) even though they are nowhere near any
> kind of "school zone" related pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Think of
> a limited access highway that passes near surface streets with a school
> zone. The highway is not in a school zone, but it is physically
> located within the specified distance that it COULD be classified as a
> school zone, if there was a need to do so. Note: If there was a need
> to do so.
>
> So now the "need" is being defined as, we need to balance the budget by
> making the 55MPH limited access highway with no exits and no schools
> nearby a 25MPH school zone and we'll install a speed camera to collect $
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ there also.
>
> >The
> > zoning has already been reported as legal, as in within the legal
> > boundaries of designating it as a school zone.
>
> The law doesn't specifically prohibit a school zone in the area. But
> that doesn't mean that there is a need for a school zone in the area.
> -Dave

Brent wrote:
>
> On 2009-11-04, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> > "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> >>> "Brent" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
> >>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
> >>>> is. Open your eyes.
> >>
> >>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate the
> >>> speed limit.
> >>
> >> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
> >> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
> >> for decades?
> >
> >
> > Oversight, perhaps. Again, even if they weren't designated school zones
> > before, there is nothing wrong with making them that at this point, even if
> > a secondary side effect is revenue collection. The zoning has already been
> > reported as legal, as in within the legal boundaries of designating it as a
> > school zone.
>
> Nothing wrong if you consider the law to be the measure of right and
> wrong. The law has lots of wrong things being legal. The best way to
> do wrong is through the government so that the wrong is legal. Like any
> territorial mafia, the government only wants a piece of the action. Fail
> to give it a piece and the actions are considered illegal. Give it a
> piece and the same thing will be legal.
>
> Traffic camera enforcement companies know this all too well. They go to
> the local godfather(s) and get their blessing to run a scam in their
> territory and in exchange give the godfather(s) a piece of the action.
>
> Because of the lack of due process in traffic camera tickets, obeying
> the law is not really much protection. At times camera operators just
> ticket people anyway or they rig the deck. (short yellows, hidden signs,
> etc and so forth)

Yeah well whether it is the mafia or not some people like the idea of
kids not getting run over by cars in front of schools. And until you
come up with something better a lot of parents are going to vote for the
mafia protection.

-jim

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:02:44 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:54:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> I know, I know, I'm the paranoid one who when reading a new law thinks
>>>> about how will government abuse it to take our money and have power over
>>>> us. But maybe it's because time and time again stuff like this happens:
>>>>
>>>It is you who say that, so okay, let's see what the issue might possibly
>>>be:
>>>
>>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2949.asp
>>>> "Maryland cities will create brand new "school zones" in an attempt to
>>>> issue speed camera tickets on roads that previously had no need of the
>>>> designation. When the state legislature authorized speed cameras six
>>>> months ago in response to a $690,506 lobbying campaign from photo
>>>> ticketing and insurance companies, lawmakers mandated that the cameras
>>>> could only be used within a half mile of a school zone. Baltimore is
>>>> among the first to admit that it will bypass that restriction."
>>>> (...)
>>>> "The city's plan is to take a number of roads that are within the
>>>> legally required distance to a school but are in areas where children do
>>>> not regularly walk. Baltimore will install "school zone" signs on these
>>>> roads for the sole purpose of meeting the legal requirement that the
>>>> speed cameras be used only in a school zone. The new zones include
>>>> Charles Street at Lake Avenue, Northern Parkway at Greenspring, Pulaski
>>>> Highway at Monument Street and Roland Avenue at West Cold Spring."
>>>>
>>>So it's within the legally required distance to a school, therefore, it's
>>>a
>>>valid school zone and therefore not a government power issue at all.
>>>
>>>Drivers should be slowing down as legally required for school zones
>>>anyway.
>>>The speed camera just makes it that much of a mandate to slow down, no
>>>need
>>>to permanently station a police officer there if the camera can do its
>>>designated job as designed.
>>>
>>>Were they making school zones/speed cameras *outside* of the legally
>>>required areas, then *that* would be an issue.
>>>
>>>What *is* it that is so hard about slowing down to a legally posted speed
>>>anyway?
>>>
>>>[snip...]
>>
>>
>> Typical response from someone who places no value on their or anyone
>> else's freedoms and rights. This was supposed to be a country of
>> LIMITED gvt. Patriots have died for that cause. But the cowards will
>> always be with us it appears.
>
>
>The severity of this so-called cause, is IMHO, trivial at best. There are
>certainly much more important causes to consider speaking out against, or
>speaking up for, when compared to this trivial issue.
>
>Again, if the drivers can actually abide by the speed limit, any revenue
>collection attempts will fail. If they exceed the speed limit and get caught
>by the speed camera, the enforcement will be de-facto justified.


Creating speed traps by creating UNNEEDED school zones is NEVER
justified. When gvt feels no moral compunction about doing so it's
time to replace that gvt. Sadly, there are too many people like you
and it rarely happens... the sheep just keep getting sheared.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:00:38 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2009-11-04, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I know, I know, I'm the paranoid one who when reading a new law thinks
>>>> about how will government abuse it to take our money and have power over
>>>> us. But maybe it's because time and time again stuff like this happens:
>>>>
>>> It is you who say that, so okay, let's see what the issue might possibly
>>> be:
>>>
>>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2949.asp
>>>> "Maryland cities will create brand new "school zones" in an attempt to
>>>> issue speed camera tickets on roads that previously had no need of the
>>>> designation. When the state legislature authorized speed cameras six
>>>> months ago in response to a $690,506 lobbying campaign from photo
>>>> ticketing and insurance companies, lawmakers mandated that the cameras
>>>> could only be used within a half mile of a school zone. Baltimore is
>>>> among the first to admit that it will bypass that restriction."
>>>> (...)
>>>> "The city's plan is to take a number of roads that are within the
>>>> legally required distance to a school but are in areas where children do
>>>> not regularly walk. Baltimore will install "school zone" signs on these
>>>> roads for the sole purpose of meeting the legal requirement that the
>>>> speed cameras be used only in a school zone. The new zones include
>>>> Charles Street at Lake Avenue, Northern Parkway at Greenspring, Pulaski
>>>> Highway at Monument Street and Roland Avenue at West Cold Spring."
>>>>
>>> So it's within the legally required distance to a school, therefore, it's
>>> a
>>> valid school zone and therefore not a government power issue at all.
>>
>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>> is. Open your eyes.
>>
>The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate the
>speed limit. If the drivers violate the speed limit, the camera installation
>and the subsequent revenue collection has been de-facto justified.
>Otherwise, the revenue collection will obviously fail if an average of
>almost no drivers are violating the speed limit.
>
>
>[snip...]

How nauseating.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:48:57 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> geebus... so a school that's been there 50 years suddenly needs new
>>>> school zones because they want to put in cameras... see it for what it
>>>> is. Open your eyes.
>>
>>> The revenue collection will only be successful if the drivers violate the
>>> speed limit.
>>
>> I don't see where you actually answered the question that Brent asked.
>> That is, why designate new school zones for a school that has been there
>> for decades?
>
>
>Oversight, perhaps. Again, even if they weren't designated school zones
>before, there is nothing wrong with making them that at this point, even if
>a secondary side effect is revenue collection. The zoning has already been
>reported as legal, as in within the legal boundaries of designating it as a
>school zone.


How can you say there is nothing wrong with creating an UNNEEDED
school zone when the clear reason for doing so is to create a speed
trap and generate revenue. Jezzus, with people like you in the world
it's no wonder gvt is so fricked up.

On Nov 4, 8:38*pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:

> > Because of the lack of due process in traffic camera tickets, obeying
> > the law is not really much protection. At times camera operators just
> > ticket people anyway or they rig the deck. (short yellows, hidden signs,
> > etc and so forth)

> Yeah well whether it is the mafia or not some people like the idea of
> kids not getting run over by cars in front of schools.

That is your version of the truth not based on any fact.

Maryland statutes specify no other criteria for establishing a "school
zone" other than proximity to the school building itself. There's
nothing required by law that specifies that studies be performed
concerning the pedestrian traffic on any roads within the specified
distance of the school building.