|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
H.B. 443
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
continued processing of District tickets and the collection of District revenues." There
was no mention of traffic safety in his letter. The District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department web page states that since the speed camera program began in
July 2001, over $72 million has been collected. In March 2005 more than 31,000
violations were sent out and nearly $2 million was collected.
The Fiscal and Policy Note to House Bill 443 states that for Montgomery County
"revenues would increase significantly and expenditures would also increase." In
fiscal year 2006 revenues are estimated to be $6.3 million, with expenditures of $4.6
million. As the experience in the District of Columbia clearly shows, once a
jurisdiction begins to use the cameras and receives the increased revenues, expanding
the program becomes a logical progression. As the experience with the District of
Columbia also shows, the rationale for the expansion may be purely monetary.
Impact on District Court
I am also concerned about the effect House Bill 443 would have on the District Court.
The Maryland Judicial Conference opposed this bill before the General Assembly on
the basis that it would have "a substantial impact on the District Court." Although
the actual number of citations to be issued is unknown, it is clear that a significant
number will increase court dockets, trial time, clerical time, and possibly result in the
need for costly computer programming changes.
National Use of Speed Cameras
Since my veto of Senate Bill 455 in 2003, the use of speed cameras in the United
States remains limited to five states plus the District of Columbia. In the eastern part
of the country (in addition to the District of Columbia) only in the state of New York
in cities with a population over 1,000,000 are speed cameras authorized. As stated
above, Virginia has repealed the use of red light cameras. There is clearly no national
trend in support of speed cameras.
For the above stated reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 443.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor
House Bill No. 443
AN ACT concerning
Montgomery County - Vehicle Laws - Speed Monitoring Systems
MC 513-05
FOR the purpose of authorizing the placement of certain speed monitoring systems on
certain highways in Montgomery County; requiring a certain speed monitoring
system operator to complete certain training; requiring a speed monitoring
system to undergo certain calibration; providing that certain persons recorded
by a speed monitoring system while operating a motor vehicle in violation of
certain speed limit laws are subject to certain penalties; requiring certain local
- 4088 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
