Archive OH judge deals blow to speed cameras

G

gut

Posts: 15,058

Mar 7, 2013 10:25pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/turning-point-ohio-judge-rules-speed-cameras-violate-rights/

Nice. Now while the ruling deals mostly with the inability to review and contest evidence against you, I've always felt that in terms of safety it's more effective to conduct an actual traffic stop (but maybe research says otherwise). Cameras are primarily for revenue generation, and I believe there's at least some research that suggest no impact on safety.

S

Sonofanump

Mar 7, 2013 10:31pm

gut;1402391 wrote:...and I believe there's at least some research that suggest no impact on safety.

I can not believe this is true. I'd think that they would cause more accidents by motorist stopping at the last second as opposed to motorist running red lights so late to hit drivers who had the ROW crossing their path.

justincredible

Posts: 32,056

Mar 7, 2013 10:39pm

This is local to me and I've been following the unfolding story for a while. I want to buy this judge a beer or something.

G

gut

Posts: 15,058

Mar 7, 2013 10:44pm

Sonofanump;1402398 wrote:I can not believe this is true. I'd think that they would cause more accidents by motorist stopping at the last second as opposed to motorist running red lights so late to hit drivers who had the ROW crossing their path.

OK, it was sloppily worded. You might be right, I think the research I saw did indicate an increase in rear-end collisions. I was just thinking about no reduction in accidents, but I think you're right there's actually an increase.

Actually I think the article was in the WSJ - something about longer yellows timed with the speed people actually drive vs. posted is more effective.

HitsRus

Posts: 9,206

Mar 7, 2013 10:44pm

redlight cameras are for revenue generation and a violation of your rights:thumbdown:

S

sportchampps

Posts: 7,361

Mar 8, 2013 1:05am

The worst part of the revenue generation is 60% of each ticket goes to the company that makes the cameras in Arizona. Sending more funds out of Ohio to get the smaller portion in the hands of the local government.

Heretic

Posts: 18,820

Mar 8, 2013 1:08am

This is good news.

-- Said by everyone on this site not named Glory Days --

Glory Days

Posts: 7,809

Mar 8, 2013 1:44am

gut;1402391 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/turning-point-ohio-judge-rules-speed-cameras-violate-rights/

Nice. Now while the ruling deals mostly with the inability to review and contest evidence against you, I've always felt that in terms of safety it's more effective to conduct an actual traffic stop (but maybe research says otherwise). Cameras are primarily for revenue generation, and I believe there's at least some research that suggest no impact on safety.

I can only speak for the city i used to work for that had them. when you received your ticket in the mail, it gave you an internet link to review the video of your violation if you chose to dispute it.

Heretic;1402460 wrote:This is good news.

-- Said by everyone on this site not named Glory Days --

not all cops want to spend their time writing traffic tickets, so of course they would rather have cameras do that work. However, I am also sure you would rather have them out there catching robbers, rapists, and murders instead of writing traffic tickets right? continue to cut city budgets and they will continue to find cheaper ways of doing the job you want them to do.

G

Ghmothwdwhso

Posts: 534

Mar 8, 2013 1:49am

sportchampps;1402458 wrote:The worst part of the revenue generation is 60% of each ticket goes to the company that makes the cameras in Arizona. Sending more funds out of Ohio to get the smaller portion in the hands of the local government.

Not doubting you, but that same local government are the ones who approved such cameras. 40% > 0% (when the local police are not on site.)

Serious question...Do the local police patrol other areas(non camera) in their district more often, knowing that the cameras will catch violators in high traffic (camera monitored) areas.? If not, then they should be able to reduce the police force over time, or it's just a $ grab.

G

gport_tennis

Posts: 1,796

Mar 8, 2013 8:05am

I know where the cameras are in my area I probably drive a little bit safer when I'm around them

SportsAndLady

Posts: 35,632

Mar 8, 2013 8:22am

Heretic;1402460 wrote:This is good news.

-- Said by everyone on this site not named Glory Days --

I think Glory Days' counter will be to just drop drone attacks from the skies if you speed through an intersection.

BORIStheCrusher

Posts: 1,893

Mar 8, 2013 8:35am

Someone's got to do it, how else are the speeding cameras going to get high.

C

Con_Alma

Posts: 12,198

Mar 8, 2013 8:43am

What makes it a "money grab" if the people are truly violating the traffic law?

W

WebFire

Posts: 14,779

Mar 8, 2013 8:44am

HitsRus;1402415 wrote:redlight cameras are for revenue generation and a violation of your rights:thumbdown:

I'm pretty indifferent to these, but I am curious what right is being violated?

C

Con_Alma

Posts: 12,198

Mar 8, 2013 8:45am

WebFire;1402529 wrote:I'm pretty indifferent to these, but I am curious what right is being violated?

I think the right to face your accuser...or something along those lines.

justincredible

Posts: 32,056

Mar 8, 2013 8:46am

WebFire;1402529 wrote:I'm pretty indifferent to these, but I am curious what right is being violated?

Due process in this case. There was no chance to contest any ticket given by these cameras.

W

WebFire

Posts: 14,779

Mar 8, 2013 9:01am

justincredible;1402535 wrote:Due process in this case. There was no chance to contest any ticket given by these cameras.

So if that is in place, as apparently some places have, then the cameras are ok?

said_aouita

Posts: 8,532

Mar 8, 2013 9:20am

justincredible;1402535 wrote:Due process in this case. There was no chance to contest any ticket given by these cameras.

Wonder what would happen if you didn't pay the ticket.

justincredible

Posts: 32,056

Mar 8, 2013 9:36am

WebFire;1402545 wrote:So if that is in place, as apparently some places have, then the cameras are ok?

I'm against any and all forms of "eye in the sky" policing for profit, so no. But maybe the judge would disagree. I don't know.

S

sportchampps

Posts: 7,361

Mar 8, 2013 10:12am

There's also been problems with people being given tickets who are actually doing nothing wrong. I know one lady made the new because she got a ticket for turning right on red without stopping. It was clear in her video that she did this to get out of the way of am ambulance behind her. ( there was no where else for her to pull over and once she made the turn she stopped on the side of the road to allow the ambulance to go around her).

Heretic

Posts: 18,820

Mar 8, 2013 11:40am

Con_Alma;1402528 wrote:What makes it a "money grab" if the people are truly violating the traffic law?

Well, if any percent of the proceeds from these tickets goes to the company that makes these cameras, it's a money grab on their part. And that has been claimed many times on any thread concerning them.

C

Con_Alma

Posts: 12,198

Mar 8, 2013 11:45am

Heretic;1402700 wrote:Well, if any percent of the proceeds from these tickets goes to the company that makes these cameras, it's a money grab on their part. And that has been claimed many times on any thread concerning them.

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding. How does where the money go make it a money grab? Maybe I don't know what is meant by the term money grab.

Is the expense to the city lower to enforce the law?

Is the law broken and fines levied?

Isn't that what the expectation should be?

Maybe it is a money grab. Is that a bad thing?

justincredible

Posts: 32,056

Mar 8, 2013 11:47am

Con_Alma;1402707 wrote:Maybe it is a money grab. Is that a bad thing?

Yes.

LJ

Posts: 16,351

Mar 8, 2013 11:49am

Some of the localities make you pay the fine before you can fight the ticket. How fucked up is that?

C

Con_Alma

Posts: 12,198

Mar 8, 2013 11:52am

justincredible;1402708 wrote:Yes.

Why?