OH judge deals blow to speed cameras

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ OH judge deals blow to speed cameras
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 11:53 AM
LJ;1402710 wrote:Some of the localities make you pay the fine before you can fight the ticket. How ****ed up is that?
That's a problem and should be addressed.
Mar 8, 2013 11:53am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 8, 2013 11:53 AM
Con_Alma;1402714 wrote:Why?
Laws should not be in place to generate revenue. Enforcement of laws should not be for profit.
Mar 8, 2013 11:53am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Mar 8, 2013 11:54 AM
LJ;1402717 wrote:Laws should not be in place to generate revenue. Enforcement of laws should not be for profit.
Absolutely.
Mar 8, 2013 11:54am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 11:57 AM
LJ;1402717 wrote:Laws should not be in place to generate revenue. Enforcement of laws should not be for profit.
I don't think the traffic laws are in place to generate money. Weren't the laws that are being broken in place prior to the camera technology?

It seems the enforcement of this law is contracted out to reduce the expense of the city. I don't think that's such a bad thing.
Mar 8, 2013 11:57am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Mar 8, 2013 11:57 AM
LJ;1402717 wrote:Laws should not be in place to generate revenue. Enforcement of laws should not be for profit.
ala New Rome. The village which only existed as such due to a "speed trap 4 profit!!!!" rule which lasted for way too damn long.
Mar 8, 2013 11:57am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 8, 2013 12:00 PM
Con_Alma;1402720 wrote:I don't think the traffic laws are in place to generate money. Weren't the laws that are being broken in place prior to the camera technology?

It seems the enforcement of this law is contracted out to reduce the expense of the city. I don't think that's such a bad thing.
It is, because the company it is contracted to is a for profit company, meaning they have incentive to push the limits on the enforcement in order to increase their profits. The job of the locality is to enforce laws and provide services. That is what they are given tax funds for.

And yes, traffic laws can be in place to generate revenue, see Heretic's post
Mar 8, 2013 12:00pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 12:04 PM
LJ;1402724 wrote:It is, because the company it is contracted to is a for profit company, meaning they have incentive to push the limits on the enforcement in order to increase their profits. The job of the locality is to enforce laws and provide services. That is what they are given tax funds for.

And yes, traffic laws can be in place to generate revenue, see Heretic's post
It's good that the company pushes the limit to enforce the law so long as they don't exceed the limit. If a City has never been able to fully enforce the law all the time and now has the ability, it's a good thing.

Things like red light laws seem to have been in place prior to being fully enforced all the time. I am not of the opinion they were put into place for the purpose of generating revenue. If they can generate revenue that a good thing when considering it can help reduce the amount of tax revenue need to do so.
Mar 8, 2013 12:04pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 8, 2013 12:10 PM
Con_Alma;1402726 wrote:It's good that the company pushes the limit to enforce the law so long as they don't exceed the limit. If a City has never been able to fully enforce the law all the time and now has the ability, it's a good thing.
Except they aren't. See the story about the woman getting out of the way of the ambulance. See the localities where you have to pay before you can fight a ticket. Etc. Etc. The taxpayers do not provide taxes just for a locality to sub out services to a for-profit company when they can do it themselves.
Things like red light laws seem to have been in place prior to being fully enforced all the time. I am not of the opinion they were put into place for the purpose of generating revenue. If they can generate revenue that a good thing when considering it can help reduce the amount of tax revenue need to do so.
And localities are changing the turning right on red laws when they put in red light cameras in order to generate more revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they are lowering speed limits for no reason in some areas where they put in speed cameras other than to generate revenue.
Mar 8, 2013 12:10pm
TedSheckler's avatar

TedSheckler

Emporium Entrepreneur

3,974 posts
Mar 8, 2013 12:10 PM
I don't like red light cameras. I hate not being able to tell the cop that I pay his salary.
Mar 8, 2013 12:10pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 12:18 PM
LJ;1402730 wrote:Except they aren't. See the story about the woman getting out of the way of the ambulance. See the localities where you have to pay before you can fight a ticket. Etc. Etc. The taxpayers do not provide taxes just for a locality to sub out services to a for-profit company when they can do it themselves. ...
I agree that's a problem. It should not be tolerated. It should be addressed. I don't think cameras should be done away with as opposed to addressing the issues with them.
LJ;1402730 wrote:...And localities are changing the turning right on red laws when they put in red light cameras in order to generate more revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they are lowering speed limits for no reason in some areas where they put in speed cameras other than to generate revenue.
I completely understand your concern regarding laws potentially being changed solely for the purpose of generating revenue. That doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. There were laws put into place before such technology was avaiable and they make good sense.

Getting rid of the tool instead of using the tool the right way doesn't seems like the prudent thing to do. It's why I support pushing the limit but not going over it.
Mar 8, 2013 12:18pm
Apple's avatar

Apple

Prost!

2,620 posts
Mar 8, 2013 1:21 PM
Con_Alma;1402734 wrote: I agree that's a problem. It should not be tolerated. It should be addressed. I don't think cameras should be done away with as opposed to addressing the issues with them.



I completely understand your concern regarding laws potentially being changed solely for the purpose of generating revenue. That doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. There were laws put into place before such technology was avaiable and they make good sense.

Getting rid of the tool instead of using the tool the right way doesn't seems like the prudent thing to do. It's why I support pushing the limit but not going over it.
Not only should the baby be thrown out with the bath water, per se with regards to speed/traffic cameras, ANY politician who voted to have them installed should be thrown out of office!
Mar 8, 2013 1:21pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Mar 8, 2013 1:30 PM
Apple;1402754 wrote:Not only should the baby be thrown out with the bath water, per se with regards to speed/traffic cameras, ANY politician who voted to have them installed should be thrown out of office!
Agreed.
Mar 8, 2013 1:30pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 1:35 PM
Apple;1402754 wrote:Not only should the baby be thrown out with the bath water, per se with regards to speed/traffic cameras, ANY politician who voted to have them installed should be thrown out of office!
You have that ability with your vote. Those who agree with such cameras have the same vote ability.
Mar 8, 2013 1:35pm
Apple's avatar

Apple

Prost!

2,620 posts
Mar 8, 2013 1:43 PM
Con_Alma;1402763 wrote:You have that ability with your vote. Those who agree with such cameras have the same vote ability.
Lets just hope this one doesn't take as much to get rid of as slavery did.
Mar 8, 2013 1:43pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 8, 2013 1:46 PM
Apple;1402768 wrote:Lets just hope this one doesn't take as much to get rid of as slavery did.

...yeah, because they're really close to having the same type of humanitarian impact.
Mar 8, 2013 1:46pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 8, 2013 2:03 PM
I have no problem with cameras, or companies who install them getting paid, considering the following:

1. You are breaking the law. Pay a fine. Pretty simple.
2. You should have the option to review the infraction, as well as object to it and get a court date if needed, BEFORE paying the fine.
3. The company gets paid to install and maintain the devices. The city should be the ones who decide the enforcement settings for the device, not the company. I don't really care if it is a % of collected fines or a flat fee. It shouldn't affect the amount of tickets.
Mar 8, 2013 2:03pm
Apple's avatar

Apple

Prost!

2,620 posts
Mar 8, 2013 2:04 PM
Conman-
Nothing wrong with absurdity to demonstrate the absurd. Fact is, if its wrong, its wrong. It doesn't need a wrongfulness towards humanitarianism to make it wrong.

This was a total disregard to due process and the government overstepping its bounds.

I hope the village appeals and loses all the way to tSCOTUS and they throw out all speed/stop light cameras and all fines returned nationwide.
Mar 8, 2013 2:04pm
S

sportchampps

Senior Member

7,361 posts
Mar 9, 2013 1:53 AM
All it's going to take is for someone to accuse the city of targeting a specific group of people. I know at most intersections near me the cameras only take pictures of cars traveling east and west or north and south but not all four directions. All someone would have to do is say the police are targeting them unfairly because they live in the direction the cameras face. I know this is how many other cities have got around them. In Columbus they are not currently at the intersections with the most reported accidents.

Also when your sitting at the intersections the flash from the cameras are almost blinding at night and are distractions.
Mar 9, 2013 1:53am
S

sportchampps

Senior Member

7,361 posts
Mar 9, 2013 1:55 AM
[INDENT][/INDENT]Most studies have proven they decrease right angle crashes but increase read end crashes by a much higher rate

Also it's a money grab because there are no further punishments besides monetary. You don't get points on your driving record. The companies also admit a mistake rate somewhere betweent 4 and 40%
Mar 9, 2013 1:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 9, 2013 6:04 AM
WebFire;1402782 wrote:I have no problem with cameras, or companies who install them getting paid, considering the following:

1. You are breaking the law. Pay a fine. Pretty simple.
2. You should have the option to review the infraction, as well as object to it and get a court date if needed, BEFORE paying the fine.
3. The company gets paid to install and maintain the devices. The city should be the ones who decide the enforcement settings for the device, not the company. I don't really care if it is a % of collected fines or a flat fee. It shouldn't affect the amount of tickets.
I agree with this. This is fair and reasonable.
Mar 9, 2013 6:04am
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Mar 9, 2013 4:59 PM
sportchampps;1403008 wrote:The companies also admit a mistake rate somewhere betweent 4 and 40%
Haha what an absurd margin of error.
Mar 9, 2013 4:59pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 9, 2013 8:28 PM
Con_Alma;1402734 wrote: I completely understand your concern regarding laws potentially being changed solely for the purpose of generating revenue. That doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. There were laws put into place before such technology was avaiable and they make good sense.
I have two issues with it if the goal is safety:
1) It's not nearly overt enough to accomplish that - besides the obvious difference of a cop stopping you and giving you a ticket, you actually have to really pay attention and/or do some homework to know where these cameras are.

2) If the goal is to prevent unsafe behavior, then the fines are really not remotely high enough. Lengthen the yellow and raise the fines and watch violations plummet (I'd like to see research on delays, because it seems when people learn about it the delay becomes an extended "yellow").

I guess what I'm saying is if the law has the good intention of promoting safety I don't see enforcement of the law as sufficient to accomplish that. As mentioned, some research indicates an INCREASE in accidents (rear end collisions).

But maybe it's all moot when in 15-20 years our cars all drive themselves.
Mar 9, 2013 8:28pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 9, 2013 8:31 PM
sportchampps;1403008 wrote:Most studies have proven they decrease right angle crashes but increase read end crashes by a much higher rate
Playing devil's advocate, my only comment would be I'd like to see a study on the severity and injury rate. Seems more fender benders but less serious accidents would be a preferable outcome. Although I might guess that's not the case with many of those rear-end collisions being the front car slamming on the breaks while the rear car is accelerating to beat the light.
sportchampps;1403008 wrote: Also it's a money grab because there are no further punishments besides monetary. You don't get points on your driving record. The companies also admit a mistake rate somewhere betweent 4 and 40%
I'd be curious, as it relates to "revenue generation", to know if a 40% mistake rate isn't due to INTENTIONAL miscalibration.
Mar 9, 2013 8:31pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 9, 2013 8:39 PM
gut;1403271 wrote:I have two issues with it if the goal is safety:
1) It's not nearly overt enough to accomplish that - besides the obvious difference of a cop stopping you and giving you a ticket, you actually have to really pay attention and/or do some homework to know where these cameras are.

2) If the goal is to prevent unsafe behavior, then the fines are really not remotely high enough. Lengthen the yellow and raise the fines and watch violations plummet (I'd like to see research on delays, because it seems when people learn about it the delay becomes an extended "yellow").

I guess what I'm saying is if the law has the good intention of promoting safety I don't see enforcement of the law as sufficient to accomplish that. As mentioned, some research indicates an INCREASE in accidents (rear end collisions).

But maybe it's all moot when in 15-20 years our cars all drive themselves.
1) you don't ever have to pay extra attention to study where the lights are. Just follow the traffic laws and lights...all of them.

2) I don't know if the intent is to increase safely or not. It should be to simple enforce the law more often than they are able with officers.
Mar 9, 2013 8:39pm