Police Plan Speed Camera for Harford Road

Margaret June 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm

I guess it is about time the county started to do this. I assume the schools are happy about it.

mike e June 2, 2012 at 01:50 pm

F that

Snake June 2, 2012 at 03:10 pm

Does this mean they will take away the red light at St Ursulas that hoses up Harford road traffic so terrible? Otherwise its obviously not being put there to protect St Ursulas children as traffic barely crawls past the school while they are going to school or leaving. St Ursulas crossing guards constantly stop traffic with their private traffic light. Where is one on Old Harford to protect Villa Crest students who do not have a private Traffic Light. They could just save the money on Cameras and pretending they are for safety and access every Baltimore County Driver a 200 dollar yearly traffic fee. I guess I shouldn't even suggest that in jest because its a fee Omalley and Kamenitz haven't thought of.

Claude Call June 2, 2012 at 04:25 pm

Snake, I don't imagine they will remove that traffic light, because the overall safety issue of the children crossing remains. If you want one on Old Harford near Villa Cresta, then find out what it takes to get one and lobby for it.
Numerous times over the last few days I've seen the police with the radar guns near the spot where they want to put the cameras. Despite a guy *in the road* pointing the radar gun and two visible police cars, they're still pulling over lots of people, a few of them actually just coming off the Beltway (didn't they get up to speed awfully fast!). Given that this setup takes at least two officers and cars out of the picture everywhere else, I'm comfortable with a camera being there. And for what it's worth, I'm not affiliated with the school in any way, but I've seen too many close calls on Harford Rd.

Joseph Russo June 2, 2012 at 05:55 pm

I think this is absolutley ridiculous. More government monitoring. We are letting them take our freedoms one day at a time.

Snake June 3, 2012 at 12:17 am

Claude. I agree they do need the light. My point is the camera will do nothing to protect the children for 12 k per month. The light already slows and in fact stops traffic while the children are crossing and the parents are unloading. My point about old Harford Road is if they are truly worried about elementry school children they would put one there. They are only worried about the money they can generate. No children or teachers are approaching St Ursula's at 6AM. The county realized many years ago that Harford road was a danger to children and so they closed Parkville Elementry. ( Now the senior center) . Old harford road does not have the traffic level, translate that to potential revenue, so it will never see any camera. By the way, prove the camera isn't malfuntioning when you get a ticket. You will just wind up paying it because no points and chances are you would lose if you wasted a day going to court anyway. KA- CHING! Just remember, Its for our own good. Yeah Right.

Kath June 3, 2012 at 12:18 am

Snake, that traffic light at Saint Ursula allows parents to turn left onto Manns Avenue to drop their children off between 7:35 and 8:10. If there were no light, traffic would be so much worse. The light only functions during drop off, then again at 2:40 so parents can turn left from Manns Avenue onto Harford. THAT'S IT. People in the know either avoid Harford Road if they are in that much of a rush or they suck it up. You're welcome.

Anibal Gonzalez Jr June 3, 2012 at 04:18 pm

So much for Kamenetz's campaign promise not to support cameras. Also, I'm tired of the fear mongering non sense of politician puke about protecting kids. It is an intrusion and another money grab from hard working people.

Anne June 3, 2012 at 04:53 pm

Claude and Snake, I don't believe the speed camera is being there only for the safety of the children because then it would be from approximately 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Its for the safety of everyone because cars coming flying down from above Joppa Road and also off the beltway. As for the police with their radar, I have seen them there for years, not just a couple of days. They always have people pulled over into St. Ursula's driveway or St. John's Church ramp. As for the light there, I have sat at the light trying to turn in to drop of a child at St. Ursulas and many, many times I have seen cars go through the fast flashing yellow and a few through the red. My feeling is, if you are speeding down Harford Road, then you shouldn't have a problem with the speed cameras being put there. As for not having any on Old Harford Road, probably because where the traffic comes down towards the schools, it's only a 2 lane road, as opposed to 4 lanes on Harford Road. Less traffic too.

Anne June 3, 2012 at 04:57 pm

sorry, that's if you are NOT speeding down Harford Road

joey June 3, 2012 at 09:38 pm

Freedom to what? go as fast as you want?! DON'T BREAK THE LAW THEN YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT "GOV'T MONITORING" The same people that complain against the cameras are the first to scream when a pedestrian gets killed by a driver. If this saves ONE life its worth it...

Snake June 4, 2012 at 10:18 pm

And to re-iterate my point, the cameras are for revenue not the protection of the children . The light protects the children at the appropriate times. For making my point , Your welcome!

Anne June 5, 2012 at 05:39 pm

Snake, your point is not made. The speed camera is for the safety of EVERYONE that needs to cross Harford Road or enter a business or school. It's not for revenue only. Have you ever tried to turn left into a business, church, school or residential street heading north on Harford Road? The cars come flying down heading south, making it very difficult to even turn. And never mind trying to cross the street from California Avenue to get to the bus stop in front of the hair/gun shop. Hopefully the speed camera will slow everyone down to a reasonable speed, not the 40-45 that some cars are doing in a 30 mph zone.

joey June 5, 2012 at 08:28 pm

Anibal, I guess I will repeat my previous statement... If you are not breaking the law, then it is NOT an intrusion. These speed cameras trap LAW BREAKERS. I could see compaining if its a 30 mph zone, and you were ticketed for doing 31, but you get plenty of leeway (12 mph over the limit and get ticketed) Your statement, as well as Mr. Russo's is comparitive to a heroin dealer getting caught selling on the street corner and saying "This is an intrusion on my rights!" Or the drunk driver having to pay a fine as a "money grab from hard working people" Make some sense people!!

Vince S. June 6, 2012 at 01:14 am

After getting 2 speed camera tickets in MD (@ $40.00 each) and one in DC (@ $125.00) all within one month earlier this year, I have resolved to take my foot off the gas and stay within 5 miles of the speed limit. Revenue grab ? - you bet. Can I avoid paying the fine if I slow down ? - right again. Memo to chronic speeders - there are websites where the locations of all speed / red light cameras in your area / state are listed. You can even download some of these lists and then upload them as waypoints on your GPS device and they'll pop up whenever you are near one. Vince S.

Snake June 8, 2012 at 08:38 pm

Uh, Anne, the cameras will allow up to 11 MPH over without a ticket. By my math thats 41 MPH. At 42 the tickets start. That means the cars doing 40 will still be able to do 40. It may slow the ones doing 50 though but anyone reckless enough to do 50 on Harford Road will probably not care about 40 bucks. Crossing around California has to be a nightmare as all the manuvering for beltway ramps going on alone makes it more dangerous then anywhere else on Harford Rd. The only thing that would help that is a pedestrain crossing light to stop traffic completely. Cameras at St Ursulas would be too far south to help that mess. A clue if its to slow traffic for safety will be large signs warning speed camera ahead out by California Ave. Otherwise its like Barney Fife hiding behing a billboard to make money for Mayberry.