Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Stench from city speed camera debacle lingers [Letter]

Something is rotten in Baltimore, and it isn't the fall leaves.

From the beginning of the city's speed camera program, there has always been something rather shady about how it has been operated and implemented.

From the closed door meetings between city officials and Xerox and then Brekford, to the placing of speed cameras a half-mile away from any school zone. Then there was the bounty system type of payment for each ticket issued that the city wrote into the contract with Brekford (even after it was deemed illegal by state officials). The defense for this was that the city was the primary operator of the speed camera system. (I would love to see that hold up in court.)

And then last but not least, there were all the problems with the cameras' calibration system, in which a percentage of motorists were being issued bogus tickets. This of course would never seen the light of day, if it weren't for the tenaciousness of The Baltimore Sun's reporters.

Now we find out that the city is not only going to give Brekford $600,000 to go away (with a non-disparagement clause written into the contract, no less) but is also going to buy 72 speed cameras for $2.2 million — cameras that seem to be of no use for catching speeders, but will be used to monitor traffic instead.

City officials would not comment on the split with Brekford or the test findings by URS Corp., an independent consultant brought in to study the faulty speed camera system. To quote the Baltimore City's Transportation Director William M. Johnson, "I can't really talk about those kinds of things. The chapter with Brekford and the past program is closed. We are moving forward now."

Isn't a public official like Mr. Johnson supposed to serve the public interests, and isn't this about public funds being used as well? Where is the transparency?

Now we have our Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake pledging to move forward with a new but smaller speed camera system. I think that even if the city finds a good and reliable company to operate the new speed camera system, Baltimore has a very long way to go to prove that its intentions are just and fair in the operation of them.

So far the only thing that seems evident is that we cannot trust the intentions or the ability of city officials to do this, which leaves quite a stink in the air.

Christopher Winslow, Baltimore

-
To respond to this letter, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Speed cameras save lives? Prove it

    Speed cameras save lives? Prove it

    I read the article about money machines (speed cameras) in Baltimore County, and there certainly are a number of different numbers associated with these money grabbers ("Is Baltimore County doubling its speed camera budget?" May 30). I use these term because I believe most people think speed cameras...

  • Annapolis and speed cameras

    Annapolis and speed cameras

    Isn't it amazing how the courts have found that speed cameras are a safety feature and not an un-mandated nuisance tax, yet The Sun finds the news in the loss of revenue instead of the great job they are doing in slowing down traffic and clogging up the streets of Annapolis with bumper to bumper...

  • Cameras and corruption

    Cameras and corruption

    I have followed The Sun's investigation of Baltimore's speed and red light cameras from the beginning and believe a desire for a back door tax is what is driving Baltimore's concern and not protecting the poor innocent school children they claim when defending the constitutionality of such laws...

  • Smaller is better

    Smaller is better

    A Baltimore City Council investigative committee looking into the city's problem-plagued speed- and red light-camera program has discovered what should have been obvious all along: That the now suspended system was far too big to be managed efficiently, that it was set up too quickly by the companies...

  • Speed cameras don't save lives

    Speed cameras don't save lives

    A recent editorial claimed "speed cameras are a powerful tool for saving lives" ("Safety first," June 3) but the supporting evidence, "a reduction in speed-related crashes — 29 percent from 2009 to 2012" is about crashes, not lives.

  • Get a move on: Local speed limits are too low [Letter]

    Get a move on: Local speed limits are too low [Letter]

    Congratulations to Howard County for trying to figure out sensible speed limits ("Are Howard County's speed limits too low?" Aug. 5).

  • Safety or revenue?

    Safety or revenue?

    Before it was shut down over reports of widespread errors, Baltimore ran by far the largest speed camera program in the state and one of the largest in the nation. It generated a lot of tickets and a lot of revenue for the city — so much so that officials were fighting over what to do with the...

  • Speed cameras didn't make streets any safer

    Speed cameras didn't make streets any safer

    I enjoyed your recent article on the statistics regarding pedestrian accidents during and after the use of speed cameras ("Even with speed cameras off, no pedestrians injured in school zones," Dec. 19).

Comments
Loading

75°