Thank you for your Nov. 7 article, “Dems blast school-zone cameras.”
This “gotcha” program directed at all Long Island citizens caught me in its trap but I will not be ensnared quietly. I have requested a court hearing and will use your article as part of my defense.
I have no problem with reduced speeds in school zones or with the use of cameras to monitor driver compliance, so long as the goal is to protect our children. I do have serious problems with the manner of implementation and enforcement that has made this a moneymaking program for some towns.
Newsday reported on Nov. 13 that, in response to an outcry from the people, Nassau County plans to install signs with flashing lights in 56 school zones eligible for speed camera.
This revised plan clearly recognizes that appropriate high-visibility signage is an essential component of the program if warning drivers, particularly those not familiar with the area, to slow down and stay alert for children.
In truly critical speed zone, the sign should also include a digital readout telling the driver the actual speed of the car, as is found on Northern Boulevard near the Munsey Park Elementary School.
Despite the fact that the existing signage is not in compliance at many of the designated school zones, camera enforcement has been initiated and people are being fined.
My car was photographed while driving south on South Woods Road at 4:49 p.m. on a rainy day in October.
The first sign announcing the 25 miles/hour school zone is located just north of the boundary of the high school property but is only poorly visible to drivers.
The sign is partially obscured behind a tree and mounted at a very low height in an a section that allows street parking from 3-6 p.m.
Cars parked next to the sign partially cover the sign and fully block the view of the most critical portion of the sign, the section that notifies the driver that the speed limit is to be reduced to 25 mile/hour from the 35 miles/hour elsewhere along this road.
There are no flashing lights on the sign that would enhance visibility and draw the driver’s attention. Because I am not a resident of the area I did not become aware of the need to slow down until a second more visible sign located in front of the school property.
This was the exact spot where my car was photographed by a mobile car-mounted camera. I reportedly was traveling at 36 miles/hour. Up to 10 miles/hour over the speed limit would have been excused. No evidence of the car’s speed is presented so one needs to trust the monitoring equipment. Right!
My surprise at receiving the “Notice of Liability” for a speeding violation was just the beginning.
When I first logged onto www.DriveSafelyinNassau.com to view the images of the violation, I got another shock.
If you do not capitalize the “D”, “S”, and “N”, you are directed to a site that lists an array of lawyers specializing in helping you to fight your violation.
I should have guessed this since the site is “.com” and not “.gov.”
The final blow came from a representative of the Traffic and Parking Violations Agency who told me that I would be charged “court costs” whether or not the violation was dismissed or upheld. Court costs!!!
Does this sound Constitutional? Not to me.
So what is the purpose of this regulation? Is it to protect our children or to raise revenue from unwitting law abiding citizens?
And does the company that takes the photos and runs the website receive a share of the revenues raised?
How does this make you feel about your county and local government?
I leave the answers to you but I feel used and abused by my elected officials of both parties.
Corinne A. Michels, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emerita
Queens College
