Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

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:

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."

------------

Yes, that's right, the little clause to stop them from using speed
cameras anywhere they want to is being bypassed by creating new school
zones. So, they have the maximum radius around the school for the school
zone, then a half mile from either end of the school zone (might even
be a half mile radius so they can suck in neighbor streets??). Now, I'll
guess that's all kinds of schools including high schools. That probably
covers most of a metro area. Not quite all, but enough it to effectively
allow for speed cameras in very many of the most profitable spots. Plus
they can lower the speed limit to a totally out of place nonsensical
25mph to boot. CA-CHING!

On Nov 3, 4:41*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> Plus
> they can lower the speed limit to a totally out of place nonsensical
> 25mph to boot. CA-CHING!

When somebody's after you paranoia is just good thinking.

Prevailing speeds too often obviously exceed conditions and common
sense, especially when those conditions include following too closely,
and the average driver manages their communications, velocity,
position, momentum and brakes ridiculously poorly and they very often
seem to be unable to even maintain their lane. Or they think think,
"**** it, that's close enough".

I think the simple rarity of signaling at all, much less signaling
"according to code", might alert the most oblivious and/or novice
"driving enthusiast" that people in general don't give much of a ****
about their driving. If you're a "driver" you signal every time,
early, and always before braking for turns, and often when signaling
is not required by law but just seems like a good idea, according to
"best practice".

Signaling before braking is a little thing, but like signaling itself,
can act to keep your focus on driving and your attention farther ahead
of your vehicle. The traffic code you consider "ticky-tacky" is like
that. If you're operating with traffic code in mind, your mind is on
driving. If you're looking for cops, less mind for driving.

There isn't a "driver" at the wheel of 1 of 1000 vehicles, probably
far fewer. Granny, in the L lane at the speed limit (attempting to
"hide" from the high speed signal-less miss-is-as-good-as-a-mile
maneuvering and entering and exiting traffic) has put more rational
thought into her driving strategy than many if not most people may in
a lifetime.

The average person drives like a moron. If you don't see that, that's
you.

The "powers that be" are going to use all their power to slow the
uneducated, untrained, unskilled, uncaring and inattentive morons,
that much should be obvious to even a very great moron by now.

Being fined is, of course, as usual, optional.

"Drivers" are subject to the same conditions, but they have the
benefit of understanding why.
-----

- gpsman

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. 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 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...]

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.

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.

> 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.

so why wasn't there a school zone on these roads BEFORE the camera law?

> Were they making school zones/speed cameras *outside* of the legally
> required areas, then *that* would be an issue.

Why did they choose not to before CAMERA ENFORCEMENT?

> What *is* it that is so hard about slowing down to a legally posted speed
> anyway?

What is so hard to understand about using the law creatively to extract
more money from people? It's not a safety issue when the school zone is
created specifically to put up cameras.

"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...]

"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.

In article >,
"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...]

Ummm...

Simple question: if the school speed zones that are being instituted
were actually necessary, why didn't the already exist?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

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?